MASTER 

NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  93-81392 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  •      r.    •    +» 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


T^nnrJpri  \)W  the 

NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


LEES,  JAMES  THOMAS 


TITLE: 


DIAKONIKOS  LOCHOS  IN 

EURYPIDES. 

PL  A  CE: 

NEBRASKA 

DA  TE : 

1891 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARCFT 


Master  Negative  # 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


'&"5ED   Lees,  James  XKomas., -._.- 

^  i        AiKavLKos   \o\iO'i     nn   EuYipides. 

Lmcol^,NebTc^ska,   1S91.      0.     4Zp. 


1 


H 


iDoc+ 


octOTS   Gisser 


di 


+a+i 


ion   51 


+  Joh 


ns 


R 


kiris    un'i  versi+u. 


17  7^)!)  (I 


y 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: 2£.i^A^l^  REDUCTION     RATIO:  //aT 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  OlA  ylB     IID  ^~^^ 

DATE     FILMED:___^|^cfi::2 INITIALS.   _J^fhF 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGf7ct 


c 


Association  for  information  and  image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 


ill! 


ill 


lllllllllilllMllllillllllllllll 


8 


10       n        12       13       14       15    mm 


liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


iiii  III 


u 


IliUllllllll 


'     '     I 


Inches 


1 1 1 


M  T  I 

2 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


IIII 


|4.5 

2.8 

2.5 

■^      .. 

1^      III 

3.2 

2.2 

1^      IIII 

u     IIII 

3.6 

1^       1 

4.0 

2.0 

UUb. 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

TTT 


TTT 


T 


MflNUFfiCTURED    TO   HUM   STRNDflRDS 
BY   APPLIED   IMnCE,     INC. 


GIVEN     BY 


Johns  Hopkms  Uni 


V 


I 


88  ED 


^^ 


<$ 

# 


^^ 


\^ 


t>ttlL% 


L5! 


an- 


^*.— U>v 


'<^ 


^ 


V 


V 


■^. 


, I-  -* 


!\ 


V. 


\ 


^;^.^^^v>>' 


V. 


y^ 


•  /, 


^■^x 


^'^-rm> 


3 


<* 


i1 


111 


i}^ 


' 


,*■■ 


AIKANIKOi;     AOTOX 


^;* 


IN    EURIPIDES. 


A    DISSERTATION 


'^ 


!-■ 


Pr(iscntcd  to  the  Board  of  tJniversity  Studies  of  the 

Johns  Hopkins  University  for  the  degree 

of  Doctor   of  Philosophy, 


BY 


JAMES    T.    LEES. 


LINCOLN,   NEBRASKA. 
1891. 


AIKANIKOS    AOrOS 


IN    EURIPIDES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


f 


.-»> 


V 


CO 


cili 


The    subject   of    this    investigation    was  suggested  by  a 
passage  in  Aristophanes,  Eirene,  533,  534  : 

ou  yap  TjheTai 
avTt]  TTOirjrfj  prj/iarLcov  8tKavc/ccov. 

The  7rot7]T)]<;  referred  to  is  Euripides.^  The  attacks  of  the 
conservative  Aristophanes  on  the  Hberal  Euripides  are  too 
well  known  to  require  comment.  Every  work  on  Greek 
literature,  and  almost  every  edition  of  the  plays  of  Euripides, 
inform  us  of  this  fact.  The  charge  made  in  the  passage 
quoted  above  doubtless  contains  much  truth  ;  but  whether 
it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  grave  fault  of  Euripides  or  as  an 
argument  in  his  favor,  since  he  tried  to  please  his  audience, 
scholars  are  by  no  means  agreed.  After  the  severe  onslaught 
of  Schlegel  there  was  a  united  attack  against  Euripides,  and 
scholars  vied  with  each  other  in  trampling  him  down  ;  but 
now  we  know  that  the  harsh  criticism  of  Schlegel  was  un- 
reasonable, and  the  poet  is  in  a  fair  way  to  receive  justice. 

In  preparing  this  investigation,  the  long  speeches  in  the 
plays  of  Euripides  have  been  carefully  studied  for  the  purpose 
of  selecting  those  which  might  be  called  forensic  discussions, 
either  in  the  form  of  a  trial,  where  the  plaintiff,  defendant, 
and  judge  appear  on  the  stage,  or  in  a  less  formal  court 
scene,   as   well   as   the    persuasive    and    epideictic    speeches. 

1  Cf.  Arist.,  Batr.,  771  fg.     Also  Quintilian,  10,  i,  67  fg. 


134629 


4  James   T.  Lecs^ 

The  subject  thus  inckules  the  76^09  ScKavi/cou,  ^ivo^  avf^/Sou- 
XevTtKov,  and  yei'o<;  eirihencTLKOv} 

In  hterature  the  speech  is  as  old  as  Homer.  From  the 
first  speech  in  the  IHad  until  the  end  of  the  classical  period 
the  p'/crt?  plays  an  important  role  in  all  the  branches  of  Greek 
literature,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Lyric.  Public 
speaking  was  indigenous  ;  the  Greeks  were  born  speakers. 
The  popular  assembly  and  the  eloquent  orator  were  to  them 
what  the  quiet  room  and  the  newspaper  of  to-day  are  to  us. 
Theirs  was  a  listening,  ours  is  a  reading  public.  It  is  but 
natural,  therefore,  that  the  speech,  which  was  so  important  a 
factor  in  the  life  and  development  of  the  nation,  should  be  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Epos  and  the  Drama,  as  well  as 
in  History  and  Philosophy. 

In  Aischylos  the  long  p>]a€i<;  are  generally  delivered  by  a 
messenger  who  relates  some  action  which  has  taken  place  at 
a  distance,  or  by  a  stranger  who  gives  a  description  of  a  far- 
off  country  and  people.  The  tendency  to  argument  is  very 
slight,  and  generally  no  sooner  is  a  discussion  begun  than  it 
is  ended.  In  the  Hept.  Theb.,  1026  fg.,  after  a  p^jai^  of  six- 
teen lines  by  Antigone,  the  discussion  is  quickly  brought  to 
a  close  by  a  short  arixofivdia  (1042  fg.).  In  the  Eumenides, 
443  fg.,  the  trial  of  Orestes  naturally  leads  to  discussion ;  but 
the  arguments  are  advanced  by  Orestes  and  by  the  chorus, 
hence  would  not  produce  the  same  effect  on  the  audience  as 
two  long  p/jaei^  delivered  by  individuals  on  the  stage.  The 
parties  argue  in  (TTixoj^v6ia,  vv.  588-606,  and  only  Apollo, 
the  advocate  for  Orestes,  speaks  at  any  length  (Eum.  614- 
621,  625-639).  The  poet,  therefore,  shows  a  strong  tendency 
to  avoid  long  ptjaeL^  in  such  discussions. 

But  when  we  come  to  Sophokles  we  find  the  rhetorical 
element  in  a  more  marked  degree.  This  change  is  doubtless 
due  to  the  fact  that  rhetoric  and  discussion  had  begun  to 
occupy  a  more  prominent  place  in  Athenian  life,  and  the 

1  Quintilian  (II,  21,  23.  Ill,  4,  i ;  7,  i)  informs  us  that  Aristotle  was  the  first 
to  make  this  triple  division  of  rhetoric.  See  also  Dion.  Hal.,  De  Lysia  ludicium, 
16. 


D 


1 


»  n 


Ai/cavLKO(i  A0709  VI  Euripides.  5 

advance  in  the  economy  of  the  drama  by  which  Sophokles 
introduced  three  actors  belongs  to  the  same  line  of  develop- 
ment. In  at  least  four  of  the  seven  extant  plays  of  Sophokles 
the  rhetorical  element  is  clearly  discernible.  The  best  exam- 
ple is  in  the  Antigone,  639-680,  6^1-^21,  where  the  character 
of  Haimon  is  manifestly  that  of  an  Athenian  pleader.  A  dis- 
cussion, which  may  be  compared  with  many  in  the  plays  of 
Euripides,  is  found  in  Soph.,  Elek.,  516-551,  558-609.  In 
this  passage  the  pi^ai^  of  Klytaimnestra  has  a  distinctly  rhe- 
torical structure,  and  contains  a  irpooiynov,  516-522,  as  well 
as  an  eiriXoyo^y  549-551-  The  (j?}ai<;  of  Elektra  in  reply  is 
much  longer,  but  the  divisions  are  not  so  clearly  defined. 
We  also  see  a  strong  tendency  to  argument  and  discussion 
in  Soph.,  Aiax,  1 226-1 263,  1266-13 15,  Oid.  Tyr.,  380-403, 
408-428.     We  may  also  add  Philok.,  1004- 1044,  1047- 1062. 

Clearly  discernible  in  Sophokles,  the  rhetorical  element 
becomes  still  more  conspicuous  in  the  dramas  of  Euripides. 
Tragedy  and  oratory,  each  a  form  of  public  speaking,  began 
to  be  strongly  attracted  to  each  other.  Oratory  lent  its 
schemes  to  tragedy,  and  the  drama  in  turn  affected  oratory, 
as  we  see  from  many  dramatic  passages  in  the  orators  from 
Lysias  in  the  earlier  time  to  Aischines  in  the  later.  And  as 
in  Aischines  we  think  that  we  can  trace  the  effects  of  his 
early  training  as  an  actor,  so  in  Euripides  we  can  trace  the 
fondness  for  argument  and  altercation  to  his  early  familiarity 
with  sophistic  methods,  —  to  the  influence  of  such  men  as 
Prodikos.  At  any  rate,  natural  bent,  sophistic  training,  ten- 
dency of  the  times,  singly  or  combined,  will  suffice  to  explain 
the  rhetorical  speeches  in  nearly  all  the  plays  of  Euripides. 
This  peculiar  feature  of  the  plays  of  Euripides  is  more  widely 
distributed  than  the  ''Agon  of  the  Old  Comedy."  1  In  the 
comedies  of  Aristophanes  there  are  three  plays  without  an 
Agon; 2  while  in  the  dramas  of  Euripides  there  is  but  one 
without  a  rhetorical  scene.^     This  is  the  Iph.  Taur.,  and  even 

^  See  Zielinski,  "Die  Gliederung  der  Altattischen  Komodie,"  Leipzig,  1885. 
Also  M.  W.  Humphreys,  "  The  Agon  of  the  Old  Comedy,"  A.J.  P.  VIII,  179-206. 
^  Acharnes,  Eireiie,  Thesmophoriazousai.  ^  The  Rhesos  is  not  included. 


y 


5  James   T.  Lees, 

in  this  drama,  although  it  contains  no  long  rhetorical  p;;o-et9, 
some  of  the  short  speeches  approach  very  near  to  forensic 
discussion.     Cf.  especially  vv.  597-608,  67^-6^6,  687-71 5. ^ 

In  the  treatment  of  the  rhetorical  speeches  a  brief  synopsis 
of  the  play  has  been  given  as  far  as  the  scene  in  which  the 
discussion  occurs  ;  this  scene  is  then  treated  more  fully  with 
a  synopsis  of  the  speeches  of  the  plaintiff  and  defendant. 
The  speeches  have  been  divided,  so  far  as  it  was  found  prac- 
ticable, into  the  four  divisions  ir^ooiynov,  TrpoSeai^,  Triaren!, 
iTrlXoyo^,  which  every  complete  rhetorical  speech  contains.^ 

The  discussion  is  often  referred  to  by  the  word  aycov,'^  just 
as  it  is  used  to  denote  a  trial  or  action  at  law  in  the  orators. 

In  Herakl.  116,  before  the  formal  p/yVef?  are  delivered,  the 
word  is  used  : 

7r/309  TOVTOV  dyoDV  apa  TOvBe  rod  Xoyov 
fidXco-T    av  €17]. 
In  Orest.  491,  it  occurs  in  the  first  line  of  the  first  prjai^  : 

7rpo9  TOvB'   aycov  av  tl  ao(j)ia^   etrj  irepi  ; 

Also  after  ten  lines  of  the  first  p?]aL<i  have  been  delivered 

in  Andr.  328  : 

BovXrj  KareaTr)^  eh  ayoiva. 

In  Her.  Main.  131 1,  it  occurs  in  the  Hues  of  the  chorus  after 
the  first  prjaL^  : 

ovK  eartv  aXXov  BaifjLovcov  dyojv  o3e 
rj  Trj<;  Aio<;  Sd/jLapTO<i. 

It  occurs  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  pPjai^  in  Hiket.  427 : 

eVel  8'   ayoiva  koX  av  rovS'   yjycovLao) 
UKOV  •    dixiWav  yap   av   irpovOr^Ka^   \oywv. 

1  The  latter  may  perhaps  be  divided  into  Tpooifxiou  687,  688,  TrtVreis  689-707, 

iiriXoyos  708-715. 

2  See  Aristotle,  Ars.  Rhet.  Ill,  13  fg-;  ^'^on.  Hal.,  Ars.  Rhet.  c.  X  fg. ;  De 
Lys.  ludic.  17,  18,  19;  Volkmann,  Die  Rhetorik  der  Griechen  und  Ronier,  ch.  36; 
Rossler,  Rhetorum  Antiquorum  de  Dispositione  Doctrina,  p.  30  fg. 

3  This  word  is  used  in  Aristophanes  to  refer  to  the  formal  contest  in  comedy. 
See  A.  J.  P.  VIII,  183  (note). 


^ 


AiKavcKo^  A070?  in  Euripides.  7 

In  Andr.  234,  it  is  used  even  after  both  pr]aei%,  in  the 
spirited  debate  which  follows  : 

t/  aeybVopuvQel^  tceh  dyoiv    epyei  \6y(DV. 

The  TTpooifMLov  can  be  clearly  discerned  in  nearly  all  the 
longer  rhetorical  p/jaet^.  Sometimes,  however,  it  is  hardly 
worthy  of  the  name  when  the  first  few  lines  of  the  leading 
priai<^  are  an  answer  to  the  previous  words  of  the  opponent. 
In  a  few  passages  it  is  omitted  altogether,  as,  for  example, 
Hek.  251,  1132  ;  Her.  Main.  170,  1313.  The  TrpooifiLov  may 
be  general  or  particular.  There  is  no  regular  form  or  phrase 
used  to  introduce  it,  but  in  two  p/jaec^  we  find  the  word  itself 
used.     Elek.  1060  : 

XeyoijjL   av '  dp^r]  S*  i^Be  fjLoc  TTpooLfJiiov} 

Hekabe  1195  : 

Kai  fioL  TO  /JL6V  aov  whe  (^poLjiiOL^  ^X^^' 

The  TTpoOeaif;  is  generally  found  in  the  first  p^o-^?  of  a  pair 
or  series  of  speeches,  but  is  omitted  in  Hek.  251,  Elek.  1017, 
Ion  589,  Orest.  495,  Troad.  918.  Sometimes  it  is  scattered 
through  the  iriarei's,  as  in  Alkest.  633  fg.,  Andr.  154  fg.  In 
many  py]a€i^  it  is  somewhat  argumentative,  and  extends  into 
the  TTiaTei^  even  where  the  division  has  been  made.  In  such 
cases  it  is  impossible  to  determine  exactly  the  dividing  line. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  regularly  omitted  in  the  second 
pr)aL<^,  for  either  the  first  speaker  has  already  stated  the  case, 
or  the  audience  is  acquainted  with  the  facts  from  the  preced- 
ing part  of  the  drama.  In  this  Euripides  follows  the  custom 
of  the  orators,  for  with  them  the  second  speech  on  the  same 
case  has  no  irpudeai^;. 

The  7rLaT€L<;  form  the  most  important  part  of  the  discussion, 
and  therefore  regularly  extend  through  the  greater  part  of 
the  p7]ai<;.     This  part  is  omitted  but  once,^  Phoin.  493. 

^  Nauck  brands  the  word  irpooifxiov  as  "  absurdum." 

2  The  speech  in  Hiket.  857-917  is  a  funeral  oration,  and  hence  contains  no 


y 


y 


8 


Ja)/ies  T.  LeeSf 


The  division  between  the  irpoOeai'^  and  iriaTeL^  is  often 
clearly  defined  by  such  words  as  (f>ep€,  dye,  etc.  As,  for 
example,  Andr.  333  : 

Mez^eXae,  (j)€p€  8r]  BLairepdvcofjLev  \6yov<;. 

Also  Andr.  662  : 

/calroi  (l>ep\  dyjraaOai  yap  ov/c  ala^pop  \oyov, 

Medeia  499  : 

dy\   ft)?  (j>l\a)  yap  ovtc  aoi  KOLvdxTOfxau 

The  iri(TTeL<;  are  sometimes  introduced  by  irpodTov  or  irpMra. 

Hipp.  991  : 

Trpayra  S'  dp^ofiac  Xeyetp, 

Hiket.  517: 

Kal  TTpcora  ^ev  ae  Trpo?  Ta  Trpcor   ufMeiylrofiac. 

Troad.  919  : 

irpoiTOV  fjL€V  dp^d<;  ereKev  k,t.\. 

Occasionally  the  clew  to  the  division  is  given  by  some 
other  word,  as  in  Iph.  Aul.  381,  etTre  /jloc.  Ion  589,  uKovaov. 
Or  in  a  more  general  way,  as  in  Hek.  1 196  : 

TT/DO?  TovBe  3'   elfiL  /cal  \6yoi<i  dfxeLyfrofjLai. 

Sometimes  the  speaker  balances  the  arguments  of  his 
opponent  with  his  own.     Herak.  153  : 

<^ep'  dvTi6e<;  yap. 

Orest.  551  : 

Svo  yap  dvTiOef;  Xoyco. 

Phoin.  559  : 

dy\  r)V  a    epco^ai  hvo  \6yoi  irpoOela    dfia. 

The  end  of  the  Tr/o-ret?  can  frequently  be  detected  by  some 
phrase,  as,  for  example,  Bak.  309 : 

dX)C     ifJLOL     .     .     .     TTtOoV. 

The  same  vvords  occur  in  Kyklops  309,  Herak.  174. 


AiKaviKo^  A0709  /;/  Euripides.  9 

The  eTrlXoyo^  is  rarely  wanting.^  Sometimes  it  is  a  brief 
statement  that  the  speaker  has  said  all  that  is  of  importance 
in  defence  of  his  case.  It  may  be  a  res7ime  oi  the  arguments 
or  a  statement  of  the  speaker's  position,  as  in  Andr.  361  fg., 
688  fg.,  Hipp.  971  fg.,  Iph.  Aul.  400  fg.,  Troad.  961  fg.  It 
may  be  a  supplication  for  mercy,  as  in  Herak.  226  fg.  ;  or  an 
address  to  a  god,  as  in  Med.  516  fg.  Again  it  is  almost  pro- 
verbial, as  Hek.  293  fg.,  Hiket.  506  fg.  In  Elek.  1049-50, 
the  first  speaker  bids  her  opponent  answer  the  arguments, 
and  this  is  a  conclusion  to  the  prjai^. 

The  average  length  of  the  py^aet^  is  a  little  less  than  , 
fifty  lines,  but  some  of  them  exceed  that  number,  as  Andr.  f 
590-641,  Hek.  1 132-1 182,  1 187-1237,  Her.  Main.  170-235, 
Hiket.  195-249,  Iph.  Aul.  1 146-1208,  Med.  465-519'  5^2- 
575,  Orest.  544-604,  Troad.  914-965.  9^9-^032,  Phoin. 
528-585.  In  some  discussions  the  two  p/yVet?  exactly  balance 
each  other  in  the  number  of  lines,  as  Hek.  1132-1182,  1187- 
1237,  Elek.  1011-1050,  1060-1099,  Herak.  134-178,  181- 
231,2  Med.  465-519,  522-575.  In  Phoin.  469-585.  we  find 
the  remarkable  coincidence  of  twenty-seven  lines  by  each  of 
the  disputants  and  fifty-six  by  locaste  in  reply,  being  almost 
exactly  twice  the  number  of  each  of  the  preceding  pr]a6L<;. 
This  universal  tendency  to  balance,  which  in  Greek  became 
a  law,  must  not,  however,  be  pushed  too  far  in  these  speeches, 
much  less  be  considered  as  ground  for  textual  criticism.  To 
do  so  would  be  to  reduce  poetical  genius  to  simply  mathe- 
matical ingenuity.  It  is  much  better  to  consider  them  as 
does  Johann  Kvicala  (Eur.  Stud.  II,  81),  who  says  (in  his 
discussion  of  Hek.  1132-1182,  1 187-1237)  :  ''  Eine  Ueberein- 
stimmunc:  der  Verszahl  dieser  beiden  Reden  konnte,  wenn 
die  Ziffer  51  richtig  ist,  nicht  fur  beabsichtigt  gelten." 

The  two  ptjaec^  are  generally  separated  from  each  other  by  ' 
two  verses  of  the  chorus,  but  this  rule  is  violated  in  a  few 
cases,  as  Andr.  641-645,  Hek.  295-299,  Hel.  943-9AL  Troad. 
965-969,  where  we  have  three  verses.     In  Her.  Main.   169, 

1  See  Andr.  i8o,  Hek.  331,  Helen  943,  995. 

2  Vv.  220-225  are  doubtless  interpolated. 


i 


lO 


Ja77ies   T.  LeeSf 


the  verses  of  the  chorus  do  not  occur.  Two  passages  remain 
where  the  rule  is  apparently  violated,  —  Elek.  1050-1060, 
which  is  discussed  later,  and  Hek.  1182-1187.^ 

In  the  translation  of  the  p/o-e/9  the  attempt  has  been  made 
to  choose  typical  speeches  to  illustrate  our  author,  and  to 
state  briefly  the  leading  lines  of  thought  rather  than  to  follow 
the  text  verbatim.  The  text  of  Nauck,  3  ed.,  Leipzig,  1885- 
1887,  has  been  taken  as  the  basis  ;  but  other  editions  have  been 
freely  consulted,  and  where  other  readings  seemed  preferable 
they  have  been  adopted.  Constant  use  has  been  made  of 
Wilamowitz-Mocllendorff's  *'Analecta  Euripidea,"and  Nauck's 
*'  Euripideische  Studien." 


I.  —  ^LKaviKol  \6yoi. 

A.  — DISCUSSIONS   BETWEEN  TWO  SPEAKERS   IN    THE 

PRESENCE    OF    A   JUDGE. 

1.  HeKABE,   III4-I292.      T^/0■6t9,   II32-II82,    II87-I237. 

Disputants^  Polymestor  and  Hekabe. 
Judge,  Agamemnon. 

2.  Heraklkidai,  120-287.     'P^;o-ei9,  134-178,  181-23 1. 

Disputants,  Kopreus  and  lolaos. 
Judge,  Demophon. 

3.  Orestes,  470-716.      'P?/Vet9,  491-541,   544-604,  640- 

679,  {6%2-'j\6). 

Disputants,  Tyndareos  and  Orestes. 
Judge,  Menelaos. 

4.  Troades,  895-1059.     'P/;Ve^9,  914-965,  969-1032. 
Disputants,  Helen  and  Hekabe. 

Judge,  Menelaos. 

1  Ilek.  1 185,  1 186,  are  rightly  rejected  by  W.  Dindorf.     They  are  suspected  by 
Kvicala,  Eur.  Stud.  II,  p.  %2^. 


ALKaviKo<;  A0709  in  Euripides.  II 

analysis  of  HERAKLEIDAI  120-287,   AND  TROADES  895-1059. 

Herakleidai,  120-287.     T/;o-ef9,  134-17^?  181-231. 

A  sharp  discussion  occurs  near  the  beginning  of  this  play, 
lolaos  and  the  children  of  Herakles  have  been  banished  from 
Argos,  and  Eurystheus  has  sent  a  herald  forbidding  any  city 
to  receive  them.  The  fugitives  have  just  arrived  at  Marathon, 
and  are  found  clinging  to  the  altar  in  front  of  the  temple  of 
Zeus.  At  v.  55,  Kopreus,  the  herald  of  Eurystheus,  arrives, 
and  is  about  to  drag  the  suppliants  from  the  altar  when  he  is 
checked  by  the  arrival  of  the  chorus  (v.  73).  To  the  latter 
lolaos  tells  his  story  and  begs  for  protection  (vv.  75-98). 
After  a  few  words  between  Kopreus  and  the  chorus,  the 
latter  bids  him  state  the  case  to  the  king.  Kopreus  then 
asks  (v.  114)  : 

KO.     t/9  I"  i(TTl  xwpa?  TrjaBe  koI  TroXeo)?  dva^  ; 
XO.     iaOXoO  irarpo^  irah  Avf^ocf^^v  6  ^r)aem, 

Kopreus  then  declares  the  case  shall  be  discussed  before 
Demophon  (vv.  116,  117).  The  arrival  of  Demophon,  who  is 
to  be  the  judge,  is  immediately  announced  (v.  118  fg.),  and 
the  king  having  learned  the  cause  of  the  trouble,  asks  for  an 
explanation  from  Kopreus.  This  introduces  the  pr^aei^  of 
the  plaintiff  and  defendant. 

Tfjo-ts  OF  Kopreus,  134-178. 

1.  Upool/JLtov,  134,  135  • 

"Apyelo^;  eifxt,   tovto  yap  6e\€L<;  fiadetv 
i(l>   olac  h'  7]/c(i)  Kal  Trap   ov  Xeyeiv  deXco, 

2.  11/30^60-/9,   136-I3S  ' 

TrefjLTreL  Mvktjvmv  Bevp6  fx   EvpvaOev^;  ava^ 
ci^ovra  rovahe  '  iroWa   8'  yXOov,   w   feVe, 
BiKai'  ofiapTj]   hpav  re  kol  Xeyeiv  exo^v. 


I 


12 


James   T.  LecSy 


AtKavLKo<i  A0709  in  Euripides. 


13 


3.    n/cTTet?,  139-174: 

a.  139-143.  As  a  citizen  of  Argos  I  arrest  Argive  fugitives 
condemned  by  law  to  die,  and  we  have  a  right  to  pass  judg- 
ment upon  our  own  subjects.^ 

/5.  144-146.  To  many  other  altars  have  they  gone,  but  we 
have  rested  our  case  on  these  arguments,  and  no  one  has 
ventured  to  encounter  danger  by  opposing  us. 

7.  147-152.  They  have  come  here  because  they  see  some 
weakness  of  heart  in  you,  or  else  because  this  is  their  last 
hope. 

^-  153-174-  Come,  weigh  the  arguments. ^  If  you  allow 
us  to  take  them  back,  you  can  ally  the  great  power  of  Argos 
to  this  city  ;  but  if  you  are  weakened  by  their  arguments,^ 
and  admit  them  into  your  city,  then  the  case  is  to  be  set- 
tled by  the  sword,  and  you  have  no  good  reason  for  making 
war. 

4.    'Ett  1X0709,  174-178  : 

But  yield  to  my  arguments,*  and,  without  cost  —  simply 
allowing  me  to  take  what  belongs  to  me  —  gain  Mykenai. 
Do  not  choose  the  worse  when  you  can  have  the  better 
friends. 


At  the  close  of   Kopreus's  speech,  the  chorus,  reflectin 
the  sentiment  of  an  Athenian  audience,  asks  (vv.  179,  180)  : 

Tt?   av  ^LKrjv  Kplveiev  ?;  '^/volrj  \6yov, 

Trplp  av   Trap'  aficj^olv  jxvOov  tK/xdOp   aa(po)<;  ; 

The  words  of  the  chorus  are  the  signal  for  the  defence. 


^  V.  143.  Nauck  reads  acrTol  nar  aarCbv  for  avrol  Kad'  avrdv,  hut  the  change 
is  not  necessary. 

"  V.  153.      fp4p   avTiSes  yap.     Cf.  Orest.  551,  8vo  yap  dvrides  \6yu}. 

^  V.  158.  Xauck  follows  F.  G.  Schmidt  in  reading  7601;?  for  Xoyov^  of  the 
MSS.     Retain  Xoyovs. 

*  V.  174.     d\X'  e/xot  TTLdov.     Cf.  Bak.  309  ;  Kyklops  309. 


} 


'Pfjo-iS   OF    lOLAOS,    181 -23 1. 

1.  UpooifJLLoVj  18 1- 1 83  : 

dva^y  vTrdpx^c  f^ev  roB'  iv  rfj  afj  x^^^'' 
elirelv  ctKOvaal  r  iv  fJLepec  Trapean  pLoi, 
KovSeif;  fi   aTTcoaei  irpoaOev  coairep  dWoOev. 

2.  Ilp66eaL<;  omitted. 

3.  Uiarec^,  184-2 19  : 

a.  184-189  (iafiev).  We  have  nothing  in  common  with 
this  man,  for  he  is  Argive,  but  we  are  not,  since  we  have 
been  banished. 

/3.  189-196.  Does  banishment  from  Argos  mean  from  all 
Greece.^  Not  from  Athens,  at  any  rate.  The  Athenians 
will  not  drive  away  the  children  of  Herakles  through  fear  of 
the  Argives. 

7.  197-204.  If  your  arguments  succeed,  I  declare  that 
Athens  is  no  longer  free.  But  I  know  their  nature,  —  they 
would  rather  die  ;  for  honor  with  the  brave  is  considered  of 
greater  importance  than  life.^ 

5.  205-213.  You  ought  to  save  these  children  because 
your  father  and  theirs  were  born  of  first  cousins,'^  hence  you 

are  related. 

6.  214-219.  Besides  relationship  they  have  another  claim 
upon  you.  Their  father  once  rescued  your  father  from  the 
murky  depths  of  Hades,  as  all  Greece  can  testify. 

1  Cf.  riato,  Krito  49  C,  D  ;  Apol.  28  B-D. 

2  V.  211.  Nauck  reads  i^apexpiw  for  MSS.  avTaperpiio.  The  correction  of  Reisig 
avTave\plo3v  (=  e$  avTave^iuu)  is  much  better. 

The  relation  of  Demophon  to  the  children  of  Herakles  is  as  follows: 

PeLOPS ^HlPPODAMIA 


Pittheus 

I 
Aithra 

I 
Theseus 

I 
Demophon 


Lysidike 

I 

Alkmena 

I 
Herakles 

1 
Herakleidai 


H 


James   T.  LecSy 


4.    'E7rt\o709,  226-231.1 

I  h^o-  of  you  do  not  refuse  to  receive  the  children  of 
Herakles  under  your  protection.  Be  to  them  a  friend,  father, 
brother,  even  master ;  for  anything  is  better  than  to  fall  into 
the  power  of  the  Argives. 

niO-T€lS   OF    KOPREUS.  IIio-TClS   OF    lOLAOS. 

a.   139-143      answered       a.    184-189. 
^.  144-146  "  /3.  189-196. 

3.    153-174  "  7-   197-^04- 


7.  147-152  is  too  weak  an  argument  to  require  an  answer. 

8.  205-213,    6.   214-219,    are    independent    arguments    of 
lolaos,  which  prove  to  be  the  strongest. 

The  decision  of  the  judge  is  given  in  a  few  words  (vv.  236, 

237)  : 

Tpiaaai  fju    civayKci^ovcrL  aufKpopdi;   oBoij 

'IdXae,   Tov^   aov<;  /jl7]   TrapcoaaaOac   f eVoL'?  *  ^ 


Demophon   decides   in  favor   of  the   suppliants   for  three 

reasons  : 

1.  Vv.  238,  239.     On  the  ground  of  religious  obligation. 

2.  Vv.  240,  241.  On  the  ground  of  relationship  and  grati- 
tude. 

3.  Vv.  242-246.     The  honor  of  Athens  demands  it. 

At  V.  250,  he  turns  to  Kopreus  and  bids  him  return  and 
tell  Eurystheus  the  courts  are  open  for  him  to  settle  his 
claims  by  law,  but  he  cannot  use  force.  Then  follows  a  rapid 
cut  and  thrust  between  Demophon  and  Kopreus  in  a  o-nxo- 
fivOla  of  twenty  verses  (252-272).  This  form  of  dialogue 
generally  closes  such  long  discussions.  At  the  close  of  the 
artxofJLvOia  the  two  disputants  come  so  near  to  blows  that 
the  chorus  interferes  and  bids  Kopreus  depart   (v.  273  fg.). 

1  Vv.  220-225  are  doubtless  spurious.  Vv.  221,  222  have  evidently  been  taken 
from  vv.  97,  98  of  this  play.  Dindorf  suspected  vv.  223-225,  and  remarked  that 
the  words  (iX^xj/op  wpbs  avrovs  ^Xi-^ov  (225)  are  taken  from  Alkest.  390. 

2  V.  237.     Nauck,  3d  ed.,  reads  Xoyovs  for  ^evovs. 


^LKavLKo<i  A0709  in  Euripides. 


IS 


The  herald  declares  that  Argos  will  make  war  on  Athens 
(vv.  275-283),  and  Demophon  angrily  replies  (vv.  284-287) : 

(jiOeipov  •  TO  (Tov  'yap  "Apyo<;  ov  SeBotK    iyco. 
evOevhe  K  ovk  e/xeX\e<?  alax^^ci^  €fji^ 
d^etv  ^la  TovcrB^ '   ov  yap  ^Apyeiwv  iroXu 
virrjKoov  Trjvh^  cOOC  iXevOepav  e%w. 

This  is  one  of  the  best  court  scenes  in  Euripides.  The 
pPfo-L^  of  Kopreus  contains  the  four  principal  divisions  of  an 
oration.  The  irpooifjuov  is  very  closely  connected  with  the 
following  division.  The  irpoOeai^;,  although  short,  is  dis- 
tinctly marked.  Demophon  has  just  arrived  on  the  scene, 
and  this  gives  the  orator  an  excellent  opportunity  for  making 
a  statement  of  the  case.  The  Tr/o-ret?  consist  of  four  divisions, 
and  the  poet,  as  a  trained  rhetorician  would  have  done,  puts 
the  weakest  argument  in  the  middle  (vv.  147-152).  This 
argument  proves  to  be  of  so  little  weight  that  the  defendant 
treats  it  with  silent  contempt.  The  plaintiff  reserves  his 
strongest  argument  for  the  last,  and  dwells  upon  it  to  a  con- 
siderable length  (vv.  153-174),  recounting  all  the  disadvan- 
tages which  will  follow  if  the  judge  decides  the  case  against 
him.  The  6771X0709  is  of  average  length,  and,  as  is  frequently 
the  case,  concludes  with  a  piece  of  wholesome  advice. 

In  the  prjo-if;  of  the  defendant  the  irpoolfiLov  is  an  eulogy 
on  Athens  and  her  law  courts,  therefore  an  excellent  intro- 
duction to  his  defence.  The  irpoOeai^^y  as  usual  in  the  pijai^ 
of  the  defendant,  is  omitted,  because  the  judge  is  already 
acquainted  with  the  circumstances  of  the  case  from  the  prjaL^ 
of  the  plaintiff.  In  the  Triarec^  he  answers  the  arguments  of 
his  opponent  in  the  same  order  in  which  they  were  advanced, 
with  the  exception  of  7.  147-152.  After  answering  the  argu- 
ments of  the  plaintiff,  he  wins  his  case  by  a  skilful  introduc- 
tion of  new  arguments  that  could  not  be  answered  (vv.  205- 
219).  The  eiTiXoyo^  ends  the  /Sr;cr/9  with  an  appeal  to  the 
judge  for  mercy  and  protection.  It  is  somewhat  longer  than 
usual,  but  is  not  out  of  balance  with  the  whole  speech. 


^  James   T.  Lees, 

The  clear  and  distinct  manner  in  which  the  judge  sums  up 
the  arguments  and  renders  his  decision  should  be  esi^cally 
notiSd      His  first  reason  for  deciding  in  favor  o   the  defend- 
L;  •;  one  which  was  barely  touched  upon  by    obos   v.  ,      . 
but  is  the  strongest  argument  tn  h>s  own  mnul    vv.  338,  -39)- 
The  two  arguments  advanced  separately  by  lolaos  (vv.  205 
;,3      ,4-2.;)  are  combined  by  the  judge  and  considered  as 
^ie'     The  'hird   reason   for   deciding  as  he  does  .s  a  very 
•  common  one,  and  is  given  in  many  similar  situations  both  m 
actual  trials  and  in  other  plays  of  the  poet. 

TRO..DES,  895-1059.     'P'i<^^'^-  9'4-965-  969-'C^-- 

Trov  has  fallen,  and  the  Trojan  women  have  been  assigned 
to  the  various  leaders  of  the  Greeks.  Menelaos  ;^PPears  (v^ 
860)  for  the  purpose  of  taking  Helen  to  Greece,  where  she  is 
to  be  put  to  death  on  account  of  the  evils  she  has  caused 
(vv.  876-879).  At  V.  895  Helen  appears,  and  when  mformed 
she  must  die  (vv.  901,  902),  asks  : 

e^eariv  oiv  -rrpk  ravr    afiei^aTeai  \6y(p, 
(09  oil  BiKaiax;,  »>  0dvai,  davovfieda  ; 

To  this  Menelaos  replies  : 

ovK  ek  X070W  eX);Xv6>',  dWd  rre  KTevmv. 

But  it  is  unjust  for  a  person  to  be  executed  without  a  trial ; 
and  since  Hekabe  (who  happens  to  be  present)  believes  she 
can  persuade  Menelaos  that  Helen  ought  to  die,  she  asks 
that  the  defendant  be  granted  a  hearing,  after  which  she 
herself  will  make  the  pwc,  of  the  prosecution,  and  Menelaos 
can  then  sum  up  the  arguments  and  render  his  decision  (vv 
Q06-910).  We  have  then  a  criminal  case  involving  capital 
punishment.      Helen,   as  defendant,  pleads  her  own  case ; 

Hekabe  answers  her  arguments  ;  and  Menelaos,  as  judge, 

renders  his  decision. 


^LKaviKOf;  Aoyo?  m  Eiiripides. 


17 


'Pfjo-is  OF  Helen,  914-965. 

1.  Tlpooi/JLLov,  914-918  : 

Since  you  consider  me  an  enemy,  perhaps  you  will  not 
answer  my  arguments.  But  I  will  answer  the  charges  which 
I  think  you  will  bring  against  me.^ 

2.  Tlp69€(n<;  omitted. 

3.  Ui(TT€i^,  919-960  : 

a.  919-922.  In  the  first  place,  this  woman  was  the  direct 
cause  of  the  evils  because  she  gave  birth  to  Paris,  and  Priam 
destroyed  Troy  because  he  did  not  kill  his  son. 

0-  -3-931  (fcdXXei).  Paris  was  the  judge  of  the  three 
goddesses.  Pallas  promised  him  Hellas  ;  Hera  promised  him 
Asia  and  the  confines  of  Europe  ;2  Kypris,  admiring  my 
form,  promised  me  to  him  if  she  won  the  prize  for  beauty. 
(Hence  she  is  implicated.) 

7-  931-937-  Kypris  won  the  prize,  and  thus  my  marriage 
saved  Hellas,  since  you  are  not  subject  to  the  barbarians. 
Hellas  has  been  fortunate,  but  I  (the  cause  of  this)  am  con- 
demned. 

S.  938-950.  You  will  say  that  I  do  not  touch  upon  the 
real  question,  viz.,  that  I  left  your  palace  by  stealth.  I  reply, 
that  the  evil  genius  of  this  woman,  call  him  Alexander  or 
Paris,3  came  with  a  powerful  goddess  as  his  ally.  Charge  the 
crime  to  her.     P>en  Zeus  is  her  slave. 

e.  gi,i-g6o.  You  may  maintain  that  after  the  death  of 
Alexander  I  ought  to  have  returned  to  the  Greeks.  This  I 
tried  to  do,  as  the  guards  can  bear  witness,  but  I  was  forcibly 
detained  by  Deiphobos  as  his  wife. 


1  Vv.  916  fg.     A  case  of  TrpoKaTdX-qxpLS.     Cf.  951  fg. 

2  V.  928.  Nauck  rejects  this  verse,  and  says  (Eur.  Stud.  II,  p.  150)  :  "  Der 
eingeklammerte  Vers  gehort  zu  den  absurdesten  Fabricaten,  mit  denen  jemals 
irgend  ein  Dichter  besudelt  worden  ist." 

3  V.  942.  For  Kal  lldpiv  Xauck  woukl  read  etV  d\d<xropa.  See  his  exhaustive 
comment  on  this  verse  in  Eur.  Stud.  II,  pp.  150-159. 


i8 


James   T.  LceSy 


4.    'E7rt\o709,  961-965  : 

7rw9   ovv  eV  av  Ovy^aKOLfx    av  ivhiKOD^,   iroai, 
Trpo^i  aov  htKaico^,  r/v  6  /jLev  jSla  yafu.el, 
ra  8'  oiKoOev  Kelv*  avrl  VLKrfrrjplwv 
TTiKprn  iSovXeva^  ;    el  Be  tcov  Oecov  fcparetv 
^ovXety   TO   ')(^pfj^eiv  ajxaOe^  iarl  croL  Tohe, 

'PtjariS    OF    HeKABE,    969-IO32. 

1.  npoo//xfoz^,  969,  970  : 

rat?   Oealai^  irpMra  Gvpipiayo'^  ^evrjaofiai 
Kal  r/jvBe   Bei^co   /xP;   \eyovaav  evhiKa. 

2.  UpoOeai^  omitted. 

3.  YliaTei^,  971-1028  : 

a.  971-982.  I  do  not  believe  that  Hera  and  Pallas  are  so 
foolish  as  to  subject  Argos  and  Athens  to  Phrygia.  Their 
rivalry  in  regard  to  beauty  was  mere  sport,  and  you  cannot 
make  that  an  argument  in  your  defence. 

^.  983-997.  You  maintain  that  Kypris  assisted  my  son, 
but  it  was  your  own  passion.  All  folly  is  attributed  to 
*A(f)poSLT7]  by  mortals,  and  rightly  does  the  name  of  the  god- 
dess begin  the  word  d<j)poavvi]!^  Barbarian  gold  and  splendor 
led  you  astray. 

ry.  998-1009.  Again  you  say  my  son  took  you  by  force. 
Who  heard  your  cries  as  you  were  carried  away  "i  When 
you  came  to  Troy  your  affections  changed  as  the  fortunes 
of  battle  wavered  between  the  two  armies. 

8.  10 10- 1 028.  You  declare  that  you  tried  to  escape  from 
Troy,  but  could  not.  On  the  contrary,  I  often  urged  you  to 
leave  the  city,  but  this  did  not  please  you,  for  you  preferred 
to  be  worshiped  by  barbarians.'^ 

^  V.  969.  rats  deaiat  MSS.  Nauck,  3d  ed.,  reads  rots  deoiffi.  See  Aristotle, 
Rhet.  Ill,  17,  15. 

2  V.  990.  "'Eo-ri  5'  dWos  .  .  .  tottos  .  .  .  rCiv  deiKriKuv  iK  rdbv  ivavrliav  .  .  . 
ttTTO  ToO  ovoixaros  .  .  .  cJs  i)  Evpnridov  'E/cd/Sr?  ei's  ttjv  ' A(f>podiT7)v  — Kal  tovvojx 
opdCos  d(pooavi'7}s  dpx^'-  ^fas.      Aristot.  Rhet.  II,  23,  29. 

2  "  V'v.  1020-1022  gtaviter  laborant."  Nauck.  In  Eur.  Stud.  II,  p.  160,  he 
suggests  an  improvement  as  follows : 


^tf{avih'o<;  A 0709  ///  Euripides. 


19 


# 


1^ 


<^ 


t 


(( 


<t 


<( 


a.  971-982. 
7.  998-1009. 
h.  1010-1028. 


4.  'E7ri'Xo709,  1 029- 1 03  2  : 

Mez^eXa',  Xv    elSrj^   ol  reXevTijaa)  \6yoVy 
aT€(f)dvo)(TOV  'EXXa8'   aff'ft)^   ri'/vSe  Kravcov 
aauTov,  vojxov  he  Tovhe  ral^  aWaiat  Oe^; 
yvvai^i,  OvijdKeiv  i]ti^  dv  irpohw  ttogiv. 

ntVrets  OF  Helen.  Ilto-rets  of  Hekabe. 

/?.  923-931         answered         /8.  983-997. 

7-  931-937 
h.  938-950 
e.  951-960 

Menclaos  did  not  enter  the  court-room  as  an  impartial 
judge,  for  his  decision  had  been  already  made  (v.  905).  He 
did  not  hear  the  arguments  for  the  purpose  of  giving  Helen 
an  opportunity  of  escaping  sentence  of  death,  but  simply 
because  he  had  leisure  to  hear  both  sides  of  the  case  (v.  91 1). 
This  is,  then,  a  court  scene,  with  arguments  advanced  and 
answered  as  in  a  regular  trial,  but  is  really  no  trial  at  all. 
In  other  words,  Euripides  saw  a  fine  opportunity  for  pleasing 
his  audience  with  a  mere  farce  of  a  trial,  and  so  made  the 
speakers  present  the  arguments.  The  verdict  of  the  judge 
after  the  pi]aeL^  of  the  defendant  and  plaintiff  is  but  a  repe- 
tition of  his  former  determination.  He  agrees  with  Hekabe 
in  thinking  that  Helen  left  Sparta  of  her  own  accord,  that  her 
argument  in  regard  to  Kypris  is  but  ko^ltvov  x^P^^  (^'-  ^038), 
and  therefore  she  shall  die  (vv.  1036-1041).  Helen  makes  a 
last  appeal  for  mercy,  but  it  is  of  no  avail  (vv.  1042,  1043). 
He  orders  the  servants  to  conduct  her  to  the  ship,  and  after 
a  few  words  with  Hekabe  the  scene  closes. 

The  pPjat^  of  Helen  contains  three  of  the  four  usual  divis- 
ions, the  7rp60€(Ti<;  being  omitted.  In  the  irpooi'p^tov  she  fears 
that  her  opponent  may  not  answer  her  arguments,  but  de- 
clares she  will  make  her  defence  whether  she  is  answered  or 
not.     The  Triareis,  as  we  should  expect  in  a  case  where  the 

ip  Tois  'AXe^dvdpov  yap  v^pi^eiv  dofxois 
Kal  TTpoaKweiadai   (iapl^dpcov  VTr-qpirais 
ix^y    dyaObv  rjv  aoi   (or  -qyov). 


20 


James  T.  Lccs, 


defendant's  life  is  at  stake,  extend  through  nearly  the  whole 
of  the  /3r;o-t9.  First,  Helen  endeavors  to  shift  the  responsi- 
bility for  the  evils  consequent  upon  her  marriage  to  Paris 
back  to  the  parents  of  her  Trojan  husband.  Then  she  main- 
tains that  Kypris  is  responsible  for  her  actions,  and  intro- 
duces a  sophistic  argument  in  her  defence.  By  her  elopement 
with  Paris  she  maintains  that  Greece  was  rescued  from  fall- 
ing into  the  hands  of  the  barbarians.  In  the  last  division  of 
the  TciGTei^  she  introduces  and  answers  a  plausible  argument 
which  may  be  advanced  by  her  opponent.  Her  p^ai^  pre- 
sents several  distinct  cases  of  TrpoKardXjjyjn^.  In  the  tirlXoyoj; 
she  turns  directly  to  Menelaos,  whom  she  addresses  as  hus- 
band, and  makes  an  appeal  for  justice. 

The  p)](7i<;  of  Hekabe  in  reply  is  in  harmony  with  the  pas- 
sionate nature  of  the  aged  ex-queen  of  Troy.  She  plunges 
at  once  'Mn  medias  res."  Passing  over  the  first  argument 
of  Helen,  which  is  in  fact  so  ridiculous  as  to  be  no  argument 
at  all,  she  first  answers  the  weakest  argument,  which  her 
opponent  had  shrewdly  placed  in  the  middle  of  her  prjai^. 
Of  this  reply  Aristotle  (Rhet.  Ill,  17,  15)  says,  yjyjraro  irpM- 
Tov  Tov  evrjOearciTov.  She  then  takes  up  and  answers  each 
of  Helen's  arguments,  and  in  the  i7ri\oyo<;  addressing  Mene- 
laos, as  Helen  had  done,  urges  him  to  act  in  a  manner  worthy 
of  himself. 

By  comparing  the  arguments  of  Helen  with  Gorgias'  Enco- 
mion,  we  find  some  very  interesting  coincidences.  In  v. 
924  fg.  Helen  says  : 

eKpLve  Tpiaaop  ^evyo^  oBe  rpiwv  OeoiV . 
Koi  ITaXXa^o?  jxev  rjv  WXe^dpSpM  S6ai<i 
<I>pffi   (TTpaT7]yovv6'  'FjWdS'  e^avtcrrdvaLf 
''Upa   0'    viTeG-)(^eT    ^Aaidh^   ILvpcoTrrji;   0'   6pov<; 
[rvpavvlB^   e^eiv,  el  a^e  Kpiveiev   Ilapf?]. 
Ki^Trpt?  he  Tovfiov  eKo?  iiciTayXovpievrj 
Scoaetv  v7r€cr)(^eT\  el  6ed^  vTrepSpd/jLoi 
KaWet.     TOV  ivOevh^   0)9   e'^^et  aK6'\^ai  \6yov . 
Vifca  Ivvirpi^  6ed. 


AcKavtKo<^  A 0709  /;/  Euripides. 


21 


ii 


And  in  v.  940 : 

y\6'  ov')(l  fJLLKpdv  Oeov  ex^^  avTOv  fiera 
6  T?}crS'  dXdarcop. 

Also  in  v.  948  fg.  : 

Tf)V  Oeov  /coXa^e  koi  Ai6<^  Kpeiaawv  yevov, 
09  TOiv  fJLev  dWcov  SaifjLovcov  t^^t  Kpdro^^ 
Keivqi;  he  Sov\6<i  eo-rc.    avyyvoj/jLy  8'  ifjuol. 

Finally,  in  vv.  964,  965  : 

el  Ce  Tcov  Oeoiv  Kparelv 
jSovXet,  TO  ^p/j^eiv  u/iaOe^  eaTC  ctol  ToBe. 

This  argument  of  Helen  is  quite  summarily  disposed  of  by 
Hekabe  in  v.  988  fg.,  but  Gorgias  with  his  sophistry  defends 
Helen  on  the  same  grounds,  and  tries  to  prove  that  she  is 
entirely  free  from  guilt.     For,  says  he  (Gorg.,  Encom.  Hel.  6) : 

'TI  yap  Tu^V^  /3ov\)'i/jLaaL  fcal  OeoiV  ffovXev/naai  fcal  dvdyKT}^ 
-yjrrjclyiafjiaaiv  eirpa^ev  a  eirpa^ev,  i)  jSla  dpiracrdelaa,  i)  \6yoL<; 
TreLaOelcra,  i]  epcoTC  dXovaa.  Et  jJbev  ovv  Bid  to  TrpMTOV,  d^io<; 
acTidaOai  0  alTLWfievo^.  Oeov  yap  TrpodvfjLtav  uvOpwirivr]  irpo- 
firjOeia  dSvvaTov  KcoX-ueiv.  7re(f)UK€  yap  ov  to  Kpelacrov  vtto  tov 
rjaaovof;  KCoXveaOai,  dXXd  to  rjcraov  vtto  tov  Kpelaaovo^  ^PX^' 
(rOac  Kai  dyeaOaL,  Kal  to  /xev  Kpelaaov  7)yela6aL,  to  Be  rjaaov 
eireaOaL.  Oeo<=;  B^  dvOpd)7rov  Kpelaaov  Kal  ^ia  Kal  ao(j>La  Kal 
TOL<^  dXXoi(;,  el  ovv  ttj  tvxd  f<^cil  tco  6e(p  tijv  aWlav  dvaSeTeov, 
T}]v   KXevr]v  t/}9  BvcrKXeia'^  diroXvTeov. 

Also  in  sec.  15  : 

el  yap  ep(o<;  yv  6  TavTa  irdvTa  TT/oafa?,  ov  ^aXeTTw?  Bia(j)ev- 
^eTac  Ti]V  Tr}<^  Xeyo/xeV/;?  yeyovevai  dfxapTia^  aiTiav.  d  yap 
opMfJLev,  hxei  ^vaiv  ovx  yv  rj/jbelf;  OeXofiev  aXX'  tjv  eKaaTov 
€TVX€  '  Bid  Be  T/}9  dylre(i)<;  rj  ylrvxv  xdv  Tol<^  Tp6iT0i<;  tvitovtui. 

In  sec.  19  he  finishes  his  arguments  thus  : 

€i  ovv  T(i)  TOV  AXe^avBpov  awjxaTi  to  t?}?  EXez^?;?  ofi/ia  i)a6lv 
TrpoOv/jLiav  Kal  dfiiXXav  epcoTOf;  tj)  "^vxV  TrapeBwKe^  tL  Oavfjua- 
(TTov ;   09   el  fjiev   Oeo^  {mv  6^^/)  OeMV  Oeiav   BvvajJLiv^  ttw?   dv   6 


I 


22 


Javics   T.  LccSy 


i]aacov  €17]  TOVTOV  dTTooaaadat  kuI  afxyvaaOai  BvvaTu<;  ;  el  B' 
iarlv  avOpujiTivov  voarnxa  kuI  -^vxn":  aji^otjfia,  ovx  w?  afidp- 
TTjfia  ixe^irreov  aXV  w?  drvxVf^^  vof^iareov '  })XOe  yap  oU  v^Oe 
TvxV^  dypevpLaaiv,  ou  yvcofir]^;  jBovXevfxaai,  koI  epcoro^  dvdyKat^, 
ov  T€YV7]<i  irapaaKeval'^' 

Compare  the  argument  of  Helen  before  Thconoe  in   Eur. 
Hel.  929  ig.  : 

rjv  h'  'E\\a8'   e\6co  KdmlBo)  lirdpTi]^  iror^, 
k\vovt€<;  €L(7iSuvTei;   ax;  Te;^i^ais^   Oecop 
m\ovt\  ejo)   Be   irpoSori^   ovk  ijfnjv  cj^iXcov. 

Also  the  remarkable  statement  made  by  the  '' deus  ex 
machina"  in  Elek.  1282  fg.  : 

Zevi;   B\  d)^  epi^  yevoiro  kui   ^uvo^  /SpuTMV, 
elhcoXov  'EXeV?;?  eftVe/xi/r'  e?  ^'Wiov. 

Such  arguments  as  the  above  were  common  enough  among 
the  sophists  at  Athens  in  Euripides'  time,  and  no  doubt  the 
poet  drew  from  them  in  this  pP]ai^  of  Helen  as  well  as  in 
other  speeches,  especially  the  pt'^ai^  of  Kassandra  in  Troad. 
353-405,  where  the  sophistic  element  is  at  its  highest  in 
Euripides. 

B.  — DISCUSSIONS    BETWEEN    TWO    OR    MORE    SPEAKERS. 

1.  AlkESTIS,  614-738.      'P7ycr€t9,  629-672,  675-705. 
Disputants,  Admetos  and  Pheres. 

2.  Andromache,  147-746.  'P?/cr6/9,  147-180,  183-231, 
3i9-363>  (384-420),  590-^41.  645-690,  (693-726). 

Disputants,  Hermione  and  Andromache  ;  Andromache  and 
Menelaos  ;  Menelaos  and  Peleus. 

3.  Bakchai,  210-369.     'P/yo-6t9,  266-327,  330-342. 
Disputants,  Teiresias,  Kadmos,  and  Pentheus. 

4.  Kyklops,  203-355.     'P>yo-e/9,  285-312,  316-347. 
Disputants,  Odysseus  and  Kyklops. 


^iKaviKo^  A 0709  i7i  Euripides. 


23 


, 


5.  Elektra,  998-1140.     T/yVet?,  1011-1050,  1060-1096. 
Disputants y  Klytaimnestra  and  Elektra. 

6.  Herakles  Maixomexos,  140-251  ;  1 229-1 357.   T^^Ve^?, 
140-169,  170-235;  1255-1310,  1313-1339- 

Disputants,  Lykos  and  Amphitryon  ;  Herakles  and  Theseus. 

7.  HiPPOLYTOS,  902-riiOi.     'Vi]<jei<^,  936-980,  983-1033. 
Disputants,  Theseus  and  Hippolytos. 

8.  Iphigeneia    en    Aulidi,   317-414.     Tr^o-e^?,    334-375> 
378-401. 

Disputa7USy  Menelaos  and  Agamemnon. 

9.  Medeia,  446-626.     'P?7o-et9,  465-519,  522-575. 
Disputants,  Medeia  and  Jason. 

10.  Ion,  517-675.     T^(ji9,  585-647. 
Disputant,  Ion. 


ANALYSIS    OF    ELEKTRA,   99S-1140 ;     HIPPOLYTOS,    902-1101;     AND 

MEDEIA,  446-626. 

Elektra,  998-1140.     'Vr](Tei%,  1011-1050,  1060-1096. 

After  the  murder  of  Agamemnon  by  Klytaimnestra,  the 
latter  gave  her  daughter  in  marriage  to  a  poor  farmer,  and 
closed  the  doors  of  her  palace  to  Elektra  and  Orestes.  Kly- 
taimnestra is  afterwards  summoned  to  the  country,  the  mes- 
senger alleging  that  Elektra  has  just  been  delivered  of  her 
first-born.  At  v.  998  the  queen  arrives  in  grand  style  with 
her  attendants  before  the  humble  cottage  of  Elektra.  She 
here  meets  the  daughter,  who  immediately  accuses  her 
mother  of  banishing  Orestes  and  herself  from  the  palace  of 
their  murdered  father.  This  causes  Klytaimnestra  to  enter 
into  a  long  argument  in  defence  of  herself,  to  which  Elektra 
replies. 


24  James  T.  Lees, 

'Pfio-is  OF  Klytaimnestra,  1011-1050. 

(Vv.  loii,  1012  are  an  answer  to  the  preceding  words  of 

Elektra.) 

1.  Tlpooifiiov,  IOI3-IOI7: 

Xe^co   Se  *    KULTOC   Sof '   orav  \d/3rj  KUKrf 
yvvacKa^  jXcoaarj  TriKporij^;   evearl  tl<;  • 
ft)?  /JL€V  irap'  y/jLLV,  ov  koXm^  '    to  irpdy^a   Se 
fiaOovra^^  rjv  fiev  a^ico^  fxtaelv  ^xi), 
arvyelv  BiKaiov  •    el  Be  firj^  rl  Bel  arvyelv  ; 

2.  UpoOecTLf;  included  in  the  iriaTeL^. 

3.  Uiarei^,  1018-1048  : 

a.  10 1 8-1023.  Tyndareos  gave  me  in  marriage  to  your 
father,  but  not  that  my  husband  might  kill  my  children, 
which  he  did  ;  for  he  allured  my  daughter  from  home  to 
Aulis  by  a  promise  of  marriage  to  Achilles,  and  there  put 
her  to  death. 

^.  1 024- 1 029.  If  he  had  killed  her  to  prevent  the  capture 
of  a  city,  or  to  save  the  rest  of  his  children,  it  would  have 
been  pardonable,  but  he  did  it  on  account  of  the  wantonness 
of  Helen  and  the  laches  of  her  husband. 

7.  1 030- 1 034.  Although  I  felt  deeply  injured  by  that  act, 
I  would  not  have  killed  my  husband,  had  he  not  returned 
with  a  raving,  god-possessed  young  dame  to  share  his  bed. 

B.  1035-1040.  Women  are  foolish,  I  grant ;  but  when  a 
husband  neglects  his  home-duties,  it  is  natural  for  the  wife 
to  imitate  him  and  secure  another  lover.  She  then  has  all 
the  blame. 

e.  1041-1048.  If  Menelaos  had  been  secretly  carried  away 
from  home,  ought  I  to  have  sacrificed  Orestes  in  order  to 
save  my  sister's  husband  ?  ^  How  would  your  father  have 
regarded  that  ?     Ought   he  not   to  die,    since   he   killed    my 


daughter  ? 


1  Example  of  -rrapadeiy/jLa.     Cf.  Crest.  507  fg. 


Alkuvlkcx;  A0709  m  Euripides. 


25 


> 


4.  'Ett/Xoyo?,  1049,  1050  : 

XeV  el  TL  '^pf/^et<;  KavriOe^  TrappTjala 
OTTQx;  TedrjKe  ao^  Trarrjp  ovk  evBiKCO^;. 

After  a  few  words  have  passed  between  Elektra  and  Kly- 
taimnestra (vv.  105  5-1059),  the  former  delivers  a  prjaL<;  in 
reply  to  the  above  arguments. 

'Pfjo-is  OF  Elektra,  1060- 1096. 

1.  TIpooi/jLiov^  1060,   1061  : 

XeyoLfi    av  •    ap)(ri  8'   )]Be  fioi  Trpooip^iov.^ 
eW^  el'^e<;,  m  reKovaa,  /SeXrlov;  (ppeva^. 

2.  IT/oo^ecTi?  included  in  the  first  part  of  the  irlareK;, 

3.  n/crret*?,  1062-1093  (I^Maav)  : 

a.  1 062- 1 068.  Helen  and  yourself  are  worthy  of  praise  in 
regard  to  beauty,  but  you  are  both  sinful  and  unworthy  of 
Kastor,  for  she  left  her  husband  ^  willingly,^  and  you  have 
killed  the  noblest  man  of  Greece  under  the  pretext  of  aveng- 
ing your  daughter's  death. 

yS.  1069-1075.  Before  your  daughter's  death,  as  soon  as 
your  husband  had  departed  from  home,  you  began  to  arrange 
your  auburn  locks  in  front  of  the  mirror.  The  wife  who 
takes  pains  with  her  toilet  when  her  husband  is  away  from 
home  has  some  wickedness  in  view. 

7.  1076-1085.  You  alone  of  all  the  Grecian  dames  were 
filled  with  joy  when  the  Trojans  were  successful,  but  when 
they  were  defeated  you  were  downcast  because  you  did  not 
wish  Agamemnon's  return  from  Troy.'* 

3.  1086- 1093  (^Mo-av).  What  wrong  have  I  and  my  brother 
done  to  you  ?  After  killing  your  husband,  why  did  you  not 
share  our  father's  home  with  us  rather  than  marry  again  ? 

1  V.  1060.  "  TTpooifxiov  absurdum."  Nauck.  J.  Kvicala  (Eur.  Stud.  I,  p.  73) 
suggests  irpoolixiov. 

-  V.  1065.  d7r(f5xero  for  dTrdbXeTo  of  the  MSS.  is  Pierson's  conjecture,  now 
generally  accepted. 

8  Cf.  this  statement  with  Tread.  373,  998. 

*  Retain  v.  1079. 


! 


26 


James   T.  LccSy 


Your  present  husband  is  not  banished  to  avenge  your  son, 
nor  is  he  killed  to  avenge  me,  although  I  suffer  a  living 
death  at  his  hands. 

4.  'E7n'Xo709,  1093  {el  h')-\o<^6  : 

el  6'  djJi€Lyjr€Tac 
(j)6pov  Slku^cov  (f)6vo<;,  cnroKrevM  a    iyo) 
teal   iral's    'Opeari]^   irarpl   rificopov/jLevoc  • 
el  yap  hiKat    eKelva,  koX  tciS'  evhiKa} 

After  a  short  conversation  between  Klytaimnestra  and 
Elektra,  in  the  course  of  which  the  usual  crrixofivOLa  is  used 
rather  sparingly  (1116-1123,  1128-1131),  the  scene  closes 
with  the  departure  of  Klytaimnestra  to  offer  sacrifice. 

The  pP]ai(;  of  Klytaimnestra  contains  three  distinct  and 
separate  divisions,  the  7rp66eart^  being  included  in  the  first 
part  of  the  7ri(TT€L<;.  The  irpooifiiov  is  general  except  v.  1015 
—  OCX;  fiep  Trap'  ij/mlv — by  which  the  general  statement  is 
applied  to  herself.  In  the  irlareL^  we  find  four  arguments 
advanced  in  defence  of  her  crime.  The  last  of  these  is  a 
remarkable  hypothetical  case  which  corresponds  in  every  par- 
ticular to  the  real  one,  and  to  this  hypothesis  it  is  implied 
there  can  be  but  one  answer.  The  eTr/Xoyo?  is  short,  and 
simply  an  invitation  to  the  opponent  to  answer  the  argu- 
ments advanced. 

In  the  prjai^  of  Elektra  the  TrpooijXLov  is  very  short  and  to 
the  point.  In  the  first  verse  the  word  Trpooi/xioi'  occurs,  which 
is  found  in  but  one  other  passage  in  the  rhetorical  pi]aeL^  of 
Euripides.  In  Hek.  1195  it  occurs  at  the  end  of  the  irpooi- 
/jliov.  In  the  irlaTeL^  Elektra  has  not  followed  the  order  of 
the  arguments  of  her  mother.  In  fact  it  cannot  be  said  that 
she  has  answered  any  one  of  the  arguments  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly. She  barely  touches  upon  an  answer  to  /3.  1024- 
1029  in  the  words  aKP]ylnv  irporeivova,  at.t.X.  (1067  fg.),  but 

^  Kirchhoff  and  Nauck  rightly  bracket  vv.  1097-1101.  The  prjcris  ends  far 
better  with  v.  1096  than  with  v.  1099.  Cf.  rdd'  evdiKa  (1096)  with  ovk  evStKCJS 
(1050). 


^iKavtKo^  A0709  171  Euripides. 


27 


t 


says  not  a  word  in  direct  reply  to  7.  1030-1034  and  e.  1041- 
1048.  However,  it  must  be  said  that  the  p)](ji^  as  a  whole  is 
an  answer  to  that  of  Klytaimnestra,  because  other  arguments 
are  advanced  to  account*  for  the  crime  committed  by  the 
defendant.  So  indirectly  Elektra  answers  7.  1030-1034  and 
I.  1035-1040  by  stating  {1069  fg.)  that  her  mother  was  false 
to  Agamemnon  long  before  he  brought  Kassandra  to  his 
palace.  The  kiriXoyo^  is  a  peculiar  one.  It  is  the  decision 
of  a  judge  rather  than  the  conclusion  of  a  p7)(ji^.  Elektra 
has  tried  her  mother,  as  it  were,  and  found  her  guilty  of 
murder.     She  therefore  renders   judgment   against   her  and 

sentence  of  death. 

Vv.  1051-1056,  generally  given  to  Elektra,  have  caused 
the  commentators  much  trouble.  Nauck's  change  —  8fV7;i/ 
'eXz^a^'  ai)  Sifaj  for  SUai'  eXe^a^,  y  ^^^V  (1051)— helps  us 
but  little,  and  we  had  better  retain  the  reading  of  the  MSS. 
Wilamowitz,  Anal.  Eur.  p.  ;i,  after  quoting  these  verses, 
says : 

"Ab  Electra  iusta  protulisse  Clytaemnestram  dici  non 
posse  intellexerunt,  correxerunt  igitur,  varium  et  inproba- 
bilem  in  modum.  1054  ct  55  cohaerere  non  docuerunt. 
'  Ces  vers  ont  ete  mal  divises,  puis  mal  corriges  '  dicit  Wei- 
lius  inprobabilia  molitus,  vere,  at  alio  quam  voluit  sensu. 
105 1- 1 05  4,  cJiori  sunt.     1035,  1056,  Elect  me.'' 

This  is  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  a  very  troublesome 
passage.  Besides  the  objection  given  by  Wilamowitz,  it  can- 
not be  explained  why  the  poet  should  make  the  second 
speaker  give  her  opinion  of  the  arguments  of  her  opponent 
at  the  very  beginning,  then  check  herself  after  four  verses, 
and  remind  her  mother  of  the  last  ^^^ords  of  the  previous 
p{]aL^.  There  is  not  a  parallel  to  this  in  all  the  rhetorical 
pi]c7ei<soi  Euripides.  There  is  no  doubt  that  vv.  1051-1054 
are  far  better  adapted  to  the  chorus,  as  reflecting  the  opinion 
of  the  audience,  than  they  are  to  Elektra,  and  it  is  the  gen- 
eral rule  for  the  chorus  to  have  two  or  more  verses  between 
such  pijaei^. 


\ 


28 


Jmncs   T.  Lces^ 


HippOLYTOs,  902-1  loi.     T?/Ve(9,  936-980,  983-1033. 

This  play  contains  two  long  forensic  pi'jaei^  by  Theseus 
and  Hippolytos,  with  an  introduction  in  the  form  of  a  dia- 
logue between  father  and  son  (vv.  903-935).  After  the  argu- 
ments have  been  presented  by  plaintiff  and  defendant,  the 
discussion  closes  with  a  series  of  distichs,  vv.  1064- 1089. 

Phaidra,  the  second  wife  of  Theseus,  has  fallen  in  love  wdth 
Hippolytos,  the  son  of  Theseus  by  his  first  wife.  After  learn- 
ing that  her  love  has  been  disclosed  by  an  old  nurse  and 
spurned  by  Hippolytos,  she  writes  a  letter,  incriminating  the 
young  man,  and  then  commits  suicide.  Theseus  soon  arrives, 
and  after  reading  the  letter  is  very  angry.  At  v.  902  Hip- 
polytos appears,  and  innocently  asks  what  is  the  cause  of  the 
disturbance.  The  reply  of  Theseus  (v.  916  fg.)  is  couched  in 
general  terms,  and  takes  the  form  of  an  invective  against 
men  who  seem  to  be  friends  but  are  really  foes  (vv.  925-931). 
These  general  statements  convey  to  Hippolytos  sufficient 
meaning  to  arouse  his  suspicion,  and  he  asks  (v.  932  fg.)  : 

(f>L\cov,  poaov/jL6v  S'  ovBev  ovre^;  ahioL  ; 

Theseus  now  speaks  out  clearly,  and  makes  the  definite 
charge  against  his  son. 

Tfjo-is  OF  Theseus,  936-980. 

ff 

1.  Upooi/jLiov,  936-942  : 

If  man's  audacity  continues  to  increase,  the  gods  must  add 
another  earth  to  the  present  one,  in  order  to  have  a  place  for 
the  impious  and  base. 

2.  lIp666aL<;,  943-945  : 

TTpo?   7^9   Oavovarj^  e/ui(f)avcos:  Kcihciaro^  cov, 

3.  n/cTTef?,  946-970  : 

a.  946-957.      Look  in  your  father's  face.      Do  3'ou  boast  of 


! 


4, 


i 


AiKavLKo^  A0709  in  Em'ipides. 


29 


association  with  gods  and  of  chastity }  I  have  no  faith  in 
your  boasts  and  Orphic  rites. ^ 

/3.  958-965.  She  is  dead.  Do  you  think  this  will  save 
you  }  It  is  the  most  convincing  proof  of  all.  This  is  stronger 
evidence  than  all  opKot  and  Xoyoc. 

7.  966-970.  Do  you  say  that  folly  is  in  woman's  nature 
but  not  in  man's  ?  Young  men  are  no  stronger  against 
temptation  than  women  are  when  Kypris  distracts  their 
mind. 

4.  'Ett/Xoyo?,  971-980: 

vvv  olv  TL  ravTa  aol<;  a/JLtWco/jiaL  Xoyoi^; 
veKpov  7rap6vTO<^  pdpTvpo<;  aa^earaTOV  ; 

Begone,  and  leave  my  realms  !  If  I  allow  myself  to  be 
defeated  by  you,  my  reputation  will  be  lost. 

'Pfjo-is  OF  Hippolytos,  983-1033. 

1.  Upooifiiov,  983-991   {d(j)6lvai)  : 

The  case  (of  my  opponent)  has  fair  arguments  until  one 
examines  it  closely.  I  am  no  orator  to  harangue  the  people,^ 
but  nevertheless  I  must  speak  out  in  my  own  defence. 

2.  UpodeaK;  omitted. 

3.  n/(jT6/s%  991  (7rpMTa)-l024: 

a.  991-1006.  I  will  begin  by  answ^ering  your  first  charge. 
I  revere  the  gods,  and  treat  my  friends  the  same  at  all  times. 
I  am  wholly  innocent  of  the  charge,  and  have  never  touched 
woman. 

/3.  1 007- 1 020.  If  you  do  not  believe  I  am  innocent,  you 
should  prove  me  guilty.  Did  I  wish  to  usurp  your  throne  ? 
I  should  be  foolish  to  do  so.     But  (you  say)  '*it  is  sweet  to 

1  Vv.  952,  953.      Nauck    (Eur.   Stud.    II,   p.   38)    recommends  the  following 


reading: 


ffiTois  vvv  avx^L  Kal  di    d\pvxov  ^opd^ 
iojv  KairrfKev,  'Opcp^a   t    dvaKT    ex^^- 


2  Vv.  988,  989.     Arist.  Rhet.  II.  22,  3:   (paalv  ol  iroL-rjTal  tovs  dvaLdevTovs  Trap 
6x^V  fJLovaLKUTepus  X^yetv.     Cf.  also  Plut.,  de  Educ.   Lib.  9,  6  B. 


30 


James    T,    Lccs, 


rule."     Not  so.     I  prefer  to  be  first  in  the  Hellenic  contests 
and  second  in  the  state. ^ 

7.  1021-1024.  One  argument  yet  remains.  If  I  had  a 
witness  such  as  myself,  and  if  she  were  alive,  you  would  see 
by  the  facts  of  the  case  who  is  the  guilty  one. 

4.   'Ett/Xoyo?,  1 02 5- 1 033: 

I  swear  by  Zeus  and  Earth  that  I  am  innocent  of  the 
charge.     But  why  she  took  her  life  I  do  not  know.- 

ntcrrets  OF  Theseus.  Ilarrets  OF  Iln'roLVTOs. 
a.  946-957         answered  a.  991-1006. 

/5.  958-965  "  7.    1021-1024. 

7.   966-9/0  "  fi.    1 007- 1 020. 

In  the  preceding  discussion  the  p^ai^  of  Theseus  is  com- 
plete as  an  oration,  and  contains  the  four  divisions  distinctly 
defined.  The  irpooiyaov  is  a  general  statement,  but  he  in- 
tends it  to  be  applied  to  his  son.  Theseus  is  plaintiff  in  the 
case,  and,  since  he  has  the  opening  speech,  states  the  charge 
(943-945).  The  Tr/cTTfc/s^  of  each  priais  contain  three  divis- 
ions, and  are  about  the  same  length.  EZach  of  the  main 
arguments  of  Theseus  is  answered  by  Hippolytos,  but  the 
order  is  changed  somewhat.  The  principal  divisions  of  the 
pt]cr6L<^  are  in  some  cases  distinctly  marked,  as  the  following 
verses  show  : 

vvv   ovv  Ti   ravra   croli;  a /ntWco/jLaL  X070/9, 
TTpoira   K   ap^ofiai    Xeyeiv, 

06 ev  jx    virPjXOe^  ivpCorov  k.t.X. 

ev  ou  XeXeKTUL  tmv  efiMV,  ra  S'  aXX'  t'^e^?. 

Each  i7riXoyo<;  begins  with  'pvp'  (vv.  971,  1025). 

Medeia,  446-626.      T;;cref?,  465-5  19,  522-575. 

Jason,  leader  of  the  Argonautic  expedition,  married  Medeia, 
who  had  assisted  him  in   obtaining   the   golden  fleece.     He 

1  V.  1016  fg.     Cf.  Ion  625  fg. 

-  Vv.  1034,  1035.  "  Halte  ich  es  fiir  wahrscheinlicli  dass  die  beiden  Verse 
uberhaupt  dem  Euripides  fremd  sind.  Ihr  Wegfall  ist  kein  Verlust,  sondern  ein 
Gewinn."    Nauck.     See  his  discussion  of  these  verses  in  Eur.  Stud.  II,  39-41. 


V.  971. 

991,  992. 


I02I 


J 


i'Jf* 


AiKavLKo^  A  0709  ///  Euripides. 


J 


afterwards  became  enamored  of  Glauke,  the  daughter  of 
Kreon,  and  Medeia  was  ordered  by  the  king  to  depart  from 
Korinth  with  her  two  children.  After  Medeia  has  been  sen- 
tenced by  the  king  to  banishment,  Jason  appears,  accuses 
her  of  having  unduly  abused  the  royal  family,  and  declares 
that  for  this  reason  she  has  been  banished.  He  comes,  how- 
ever, wdth  the  offer  of  pecuniary  aid  for  their  children  (vv. 
448-458).  Medeia  charges  him  w^ith  injustice  and  incon- 
stancy, and  delivers  a  bitter  invective  against  him.  He  replies 
in  a  py)(n<^  of  about  the  same  length. 

'P-ncris  OF  Medeia,  465-519. 

1.  n/ooo///-ioi^,  465-474 : 

You  utter  wn"etch,  you  have  come,  have  you  }  ^  This  is  not 
courage  or  boldness,  to  look  in  the  face  of  friends  you  have 
injured,  but  the  greatest  evil  among  men,  —  insolence. 

ev  B^  i'7T0ii](ja<=;  pioXciov, 
eyo)  re  yap  Xe^aaa  Kov(^iadi]ao[Jbai 
'^vyyjv  KaKM<=;  ere  kuI  av  XuTr/jaet  kXvcov. 

2.  Up66€ai<i,  475-498  : 

eK  TMV  Be  TTpMTcov  TTpMTov  ap^ofxai  Xeyeiv. 

I  saved  your  life  when  you  w^ere  sent  to  overcome  the  fire- 
breathing  bulls,  and  I  slew^  the  dragon  that  guarded  the 
golden  fleece.  I  deserted  home  and  kindred  to  come  with 
you  to  lolchos.  After  receiving  such  favors,  you  have  deserted 
me  and  taken  another  wife.  You  have  broken  the  oaths  you 
made  before  the  gods,  and  I  am  ruined. 

3.  Uiarei^,  499-515* 

a.  499-508.  Come,  I  will  converse  with  you  as  a  friend, 
—  although  expecting  no  advantage,  —  because  wdien  ques- 
tioned you  will  appear  the  greater  villain.  Where  now^  shall 
I  turn  ?  To  the  home  I  abandoned  ?  To  the  sad  daughters 
of  Pelias  ?  A  fine  reception  they  w^ould  give  me  after  killing 
their  father.     I  have  made  enemies  of  my  friends  to  help  you. 

1  V.  468  is  probably  interpolated  from  v.  1324.     Klotz,  however,  defends  it. 


32 


James   T.  Lees^ 


^LKavLKo^;  A6yo<;  in  Euripides. 


33 


^'  509-515-  For  this  you  have  made  me  a  happy  wife 
indeed,  and  a  wonderful  husband  I  have  in  you  if,  as  an 
exile,  I  am  driven  away  to  wander  with  my  children. 

4.  'E7r/Xo709,  5  16-5 19  : 

reKjJLy'jpL    dvOpcoiroiaLV  wiraaa^;  aa(f>Pj^ 
avSpMP  8'   oTcp  'xptj  TOP  KaKov  8i€t8euai, 

'Pii<ris  OF  Jason,  522-575. 

1.  UpooifjLtov,  532-525  : 

I  must  not  be  slow  to  answer,  but  as  a  skilful  pilot  with 
close-reefed  sail,^  I  must  escape  from  the  violent  storm  of 
your  words. 

2.  TIpodeaL^  omitted. 

3.  rito-Tei?,  526-567  : 

a-  526-533.  I  consider  that  Kypris  was  the  person  who 
saved  me.^  Subtle  and  shrewd  are  your  arguments,  but  it 
was  Eros  that  forced  you  to  assist  me.  This  point,  however, 
I  will  not  press  too  closely. 

0.  534-544.  You  have  received  more  than  you  gave,  as  I 
will  prove.  You  live  in  Greece  instead  of  among  barbarians. 
You  enjoy  the  advantage  of  justice  and  law,  and  are  not  sub- 
ject to  mere  force.^  You  have  gained  a  reputation  among 
the  Greeks  which  otherwise  you  would  not  have. 

Vv.  545,  546: 


t    *» 


Toaavra  fiev  aot  rcov  e/jicov  irovwv  irept 
eXe^  '   aficWav  yap   av  'iTpov6rjKa<^  Xoycov.^ 

7-   547-5^7  (ovPjaai).     You   blame   me   because   I    married 
into  the  royal  family.      In  answer  I  will  say  that  I  was  (i) 

1  See  the  scholiast  and  Elmsley  for  a  different  interpretation  of  this  passaj:^e. 

2  Vv.   526-528.     Nauck  reads  e-rrel  arjv  for  eVeiS?;  ;    also  <TU}T7]pias  vavKXrjpov 
for  vavKXrjpias  cribreLpav.     See  Nauck,  Eur.  Stud.  I,  p.  120. 

3  V.  538.     Kpdros,  Nauck.     Retain  xapt"  of  the  MSS.  and  cf.  Soph.  Antig.  30. 
*  V.  546.     Cf.  Suppl.  428. 


i 


wise,  because  I  could  not  have  gained  a  greater  advantage 
(vv.  551-554)  ;  (2)  prudent,  in  that  I  was  not  influenced  sim- 
ply by  a  desire  for  a  new  wife  (vv.  555-558)  ;  (3)  a  friend  to 
you  and  my  children,  because  we  could  rise  from  poverty  to 
w^ealth  (vv.  559-567). 

4.  'Ett/Xoyo?,  567-575.      It  is  the  thought  of  your  bed  that 
grates  upon  your  feelings. 

XPV^  ^P^  aWoOev  TToOev  fipoTOv^ 
TralBa^  reKVovaOai,  6rj\v  K  ovfc  elvai  yevo^  • . 
^oi/TO)?  av  ovK  rjv  ovBev  avOpcoiroi^  kukov. 


Tijo-ts  OF  iMedeia. 

TT    'z3         (  475-487         answered 

^  (  488-498 

n/o-re^?        /3.   509-515  " 


riiVrets  OF  Jason. 

«•  526-533. 
/3.  534-544. 
7.  547-567- 


The  Trpooifiiov  in  the  pijai^  of  Medeia  is  an  answer  to  the 
insulting  language  of  Jason  immediately  preceding,  and  at 
the  same  time  an  introduction  to  the  7rp6d€aL<;.  In  this  prjcn^^t 
as  in  that  of  Menelaos  in  Iph.  en  Aul.  337  fg.,  we  find  an 
elaborate  irpoOeaL^y  in  which  Medeia  relates  the  past  actions 
of  Jason  and  her  assistance  to  him.  The  TTiarei^  contain 
little  that  can  be  called  argumentative.  It  is  not  her  purpose 
to  persuade  him  to  relent,  but  rather  to  prove  him  to  be  the 
utter  wretch  that  he  is.  We  should  notice  particularly  vv. 
475,  545,  546,  as  distinctly  marking  the  dividing  lines  of  the 
parts  of  the  pi'^aei^.  The  iiriXoyo^  of  Medeia  is  excellent, 
and  may  be  compared  with  the  best  in  any  of  the  speeches. 

Jason's  speech  is  rather  an  dhiKo^  X6yo<;,  but  Euripidean 
sophistry  gives  him  a  fairly  good  argument.  Almost  the 
whole  prjcri<i  is  occupied  with  answering  the  numerous  charges 
of  Medeia,  and  in  endeavoring  to  prove  that  his  conduct  is 
justifiable.  His  arguments  in  vv.  551-567,  where  he  tries  to 
prove  that  he  has  shown  aocj^lap,  aa>cf>pocTvvr)p,  and  ^iXlav  in 
his  course  of  action,  w^ould  be  almost  amusing  did  they  not 
pertain  to  such  a  serious  question  and  involve  still  more  seri- 
ous consequences.     The  irpooifiiov  and  eV/Xoyo?,  as  well  as 


34 


James   T.  LceSy 


the  several  parts  of  the  irlaTei^y  are  clearly  defined  and  set 
forth  with  the  skill  of  a  practised  lawyer. 


II.  —  AiKai^LKol    Koi    SvfJi/SovXeVTLKOL, 
PARTLY    DISCUSSION    AND    PARTLY    PERSUASION. 
I.    HeKABE,   218-437.      'P/i(7€L^,  251-295,   299-331,  342-378. 

Disputants,  Hekabe  and  Odysseus. 
Pleader^  Pol3'xena. 

2.  HiKETIDES,   87-584.       'P^;(T6f9,    163-I92,    (195-249),    297- 
331.   334-364,   (409-425),  426-462,  465-510,   513-563- 

Pleaders,  Adrastos  and  Aithra. 

Judge,  Theseus. 

Disputants,  Herald  and  Theseus. 

3.  JPHrGENEIA  EX  AuLlDI,    IIO6-I275.      'V))(Tei^,   II46-I208, 

I2II-I252. 
Disputant,  Klytaimnestra. 
Pleader,  Iphigeneia. 
Judge,  Agamemnon. 

4.  PhOINISSAI,  446-637.      'P;;(7e^9,  469-496,    499-525,    528- 

585. 
Disputants,  Polyneikes  and  Eteokles. 
Mediator,  lokaste. 

ANALYSIS   OF   PHOINISSAI,  446-637 

The  two  sons  of  Oidipous,  Kteokles  and  Polyneikes,  having 
agreed  to  rule  Thebes  year  by  year  alternately,  the  younger 
withdrew  for  a  year.  But  at  the  end  of  the  first  year  Eteo- 
kles proved  false  to  his  promise,  and  would  not  relinquish  the 
rule.  Polyneikes  thereupon  formed  an  alliance  with  Adras- 
tos, king  of  Argos,  and  after  collecting  an  army  marched 
against  Thebes.  When  the  invading  army  appeared  before 
the  walls  of  the  city,  lokaste,  the  mother  of  the  rival  claim- 


AcKavLKo^  A0709  /;/  Euripides. 


35 


t 


^. 


4 


ants,  persuaded  them  to  meet  and  try  to  settle  their  dispute. 
Polyneikes  then  enters  the  city,  and  the  brothers  state  their 
case  in  the  presence  of  lokaste. 

'Pfjo-is  OF  Polyneikes,  469-496. 

1.  ITpoo/yLttor,  469-472  : 

Truth  is  simple,  and  justice  needs  no  cunning  language,  but 
a  false  argument  requires  sophistic  expedients.^ 

2.  YipoOeGi^,  473-493  ' 

a.  473-483.  To  avoid  the  curse  of  Oidipous  I  voluntarily 
left  this  land,  after  agreeing  with  Eteokles  that  we  should 
each  rule  a  year  in  turn,  and  thus  avoid  enmity  and  blood- 
shed.2  He  has  not  kept  his  oath,  but  holds  the  sovereignty 
and  my  share  of  the  ruling  power. 

/3.  484-493.  Even  now  I  am  willing  to  dismiss  the  army 
if  I  am  granted  my  rights,  and  after  ruling  my  allotted  time 
I  will  resign.  If  this  be  not  granted,  I  shall  try  to  gain  it  by 
force  of  arms,  and  I  call  the  gods  to  witness  the  justice  of 
my  cause. 

3.  n/o-Tet9  omitted. 

4.  'E7r/Xo709,  494-496 : 

ravT    av6'  eKaara,  firJTep,  ov^l  7r6pL7r\ofca<; 
Xoycov  a6polaa<^  elirov,  aWa  Kal  cro</)ot9 
Kal  Tolai  ^avXoLf;  eVSt^',  o)?  efiol  Bok€1. 

'Pfi<rts  OF  Eteokles,  499-525. 

1.  Ylpooifxiov,  499-502: 

el  iraai  ravro  koXov  €(f)u  (T0(f}6v  &  afxa, 
OVK   TjV   aV   dfJL(j)L\€KTO<;    dvOpMTTOt^;    e/)i9  • 
vvv  o    ovu    ofioiov  ovoev  ovr    lctov  ppoTOt<;, 
TrXrjv  ovofiaaiv,  to   8'   epyov  ovk  ecTTiv  roSe. 

2.  UpoOeat^  omitted. 

1  This  irpoolixLov  is  quoted  by  Stobaeus,  Flor.  XI,  12.  Compare  the  thought 
with  Hek.  11 87-1 194. 

2  Nauck  rightly  suspects  v.  480.     See  Eur.  Stud.  I,  p.  76. 


^ 


36 


James   T.  LccSy 


3.  11/(7X6^9,  503-520: 

a.  503-508.  I  would  do  all  in  my  power  to  gain  the  great- 
est gift  of  the  gods,  —  sovereignty,  —  and  I  am  unwilling  to 
resisrn  it  to  another. 

y8.  509-514.  It  is  cowardly  to  lose  the  greater  and  accept 
the  less.  I  should  feel  ashamed,  and  the  citizens  of  Thebes 
would  reproach  me,  if  I  should  yield  to  my  brother  when  he 
has  come  in  arms. 

7.  515-520.  He  ought  to  have  offered  to  settle  the  ques- 
tion by  arbitration  rather  than  enforce  his  claims  by  arms. 
If  he  wishes  to  live  here  as  a  citizen  he  may  do  so,  but  I  will 
never  consent  ^  to  become  his  subject. 

4.  'Ett/Xoyo?,  521-525  : 

Therefore  come  fire,  sword,  and  chariot,  for  I  will  not  give 
up  my  sovereignty. 

el'irep  yap  dSifcetv  XP^'h  TvpavviSo^  irepi 
koWlo-tov  aSi/celv,  rciWa  S'   evo-ejSelv  ^pecoi^. 

'PfjoriS    OF    lOKASTE,  528-585. 
I.     UpOOl/JLLOV,    528-530:^ 

ft)  TeKVov,  ov^  ciTravra  tm  yfjpa  fcaKCi, 
'Ereo/cXees",  irpoaeariv  •  aXX'  ij/JLTreipia 
€)(€i  TL  Xe^at  Tcov  vecov  croclxoTepop. 

2.  UpoOeaL'i  omitted. 

3.  n/o-Tff?,  53i-5^'^3: 

a.  531-548.-'^  (Addressed  to  Eteokles.)  Why  do  you  court 
distinction,  the  greatest  evil  of  the  gods,  which  has  destroyed 
many  homes  and  cities  ?  It  is  far  better  to  respect  the  law 
of  equality,  which  binds  friends  to  friends,  cities  to  cities,  and 
has  established  fair  dealing  among  men.  Even  night  and 
day  proceed  in  equal  rounds,  and  neither  one  is  envious  of 
the  other. 

^  V.  519.      Retain  fxedriffOfiaL  of  the  MSS. 

■^  This  TTpooi/jiLov  is  also  quoted  by  Stobacus,  Flor.  XV,  I. 
3  Cf.  Dio  Chrysost.  XVII,  p.  2S7. 


LiKavLKo^  \6yo^  in  Euripides. 


37 


4 


i 


h 


^'  549-557-  ^Vhy  do  you  prize  sovereignty  so  highly  }  It 
is  but  prosperity  with  injustice,  — an  empty  honor.  Why  toil 
laboriously  when  you  have  much  at  home  1^  Wealth  is  but  a 
name,  and  riches  belong  not  to  men,  but  to  the  gods. 

7-  558-565.  I  propose  to  you  two  alternatives.  Do  you 
prefer  to  rule  or  to  save  the  city }  Do  you  say  you  prefer  to 
hold  the  throne.?  Then,  if  he  is  victorious,  you  will  see 
Thebes  conquered  and  many  captive  maidens  ruined  by  your 
enemies. 

3.  568-583:2 

(Tol  /Jiev  TdS*  avScb,  aol  Be  UoXvvet/ce^;  \eyco. 
(Addressed  to  Polyneikes.)     Adrastos  has  not  wisely  con- 
ferred his  favors,  and  you  are  foolish  for  coming  to  destroy 
the  city.     Suppose    you  take  the  city  —  Heaven  forbid  !  — 
how  can  you  inscribe  upon  the  spoils : 

"0?;y8a9  iTvpMaa^  rdaSe  IIoXvv€lk7](;  6eol<; 

On  the  other  hand,  if  you  are  defeated,  how  can  you  return 
to  Argos  after  leaving  the  dead  ?     Many  will  say  : 

"  M  fcaKci  fjLvrjarevfjiaTa 
"ASpaare  irpoaOel^,  Sid  fjnd^;  vv^(^7]^  ydfLov 
aTTCoXo/jieaOa. 

4.  'EirlXoyo^,  584,  585  : 

/jbiderov  to  Xlav,  fxederov  •  dfiaOiai  Svolv, 
eh  ravO*  orav  ploXt^tov,  ex^carov  KaKov, 
The  arguments  of  lokaste,  powerful  as  they  are,  have  no 
effect  on  Eteokles.  He  declares  that  words  can  accomplish 
nothing  in  the  present  contest  (588,  589),  and  orders  his 
brother  to  leave  the  city  (593).  This  causes  a  very  passion- 
ate debate  to  take  place  between  the  brothers  in  a  series  of 
trochaic  verses  (594-624).  At  first  the  debate  is  conducted 
in  o-nxop'vOLa  (596-602),  but  as  their  anger  increases  they 
change  to  ij/jLiarixtay  and  thus  continue  to  the  end  (603-624). 

1  v.  552.     Retain  iv  dii/j-aac   of    the    MSS.      On  evdaifiova   (the   reading  of 
Nauck)  see  Eur.  Stud.  I,  78. 

2  Dindorf  rightly  condemns  vv.  566,  567.     Nauck  puts  v.  567  in  brackets. 


« 


38 


Ja772cs  T.  LeeSy 


^iKaviKo^  A0709  /;/  Euripides. 


39 


In  vv.  625-635  Polyneikes  calls  upon  the  gods  to  witness  the 
injustice  he  receives,  and  as  he  departs  Eteokles  exclaims  : 

e^iO    €K  ^copa^  '  d\r}6a)<s   3'   ovofxa   I1o\vv6lk7]v  irarrjp 
eOero  aou   Oela  irpovoia  V6iKeo)V  tTroovvjJLOV, 

There  are  several  points  in  the  above  pr]aei<;  that  are  worthy 
of  special  attention.  The  most  striking  peculiarity  is  the 
length  and  arrangement  of  the  three  speeches.  The  py)(TL<^ 
of  Polyneikes  is  exactly  the  same  length  as  that  of  his  brother. 
The  two  p7J<7€i(;  taken  together  contain  about  the  same  num- 
ber of  verses  as  one  prjo-L^  in  other  discussions.  In  the  p}]aL<; 
of  Polyneikes  also  the  7riaT6i<;  are  wanting.  The  irpoOeaL^  is 
the  part  that  is  generally  omitted,  but  here  we  find  the  whole 
prjaL<^  is  practically  limited  to  the  irpoOeaL^  or  huj^rjai^.  The 
pr)ai^  of  Eteokles,  on  the  other  hand,  is  nearly  all  occupied 
with  the  iriareL^.  The  poet  has  skilfully  placed  the  best 
arguments  last,  in  order  to  leave  as  good  an  impression  as 
possible  of  this  unjust  side  of  the  case.  The  irpoolpLLov  and 
€7rl\oyo(;  are  clearly  defined  in  each  pPjaL<;.  Another  peculiar 
feature  is  that  lokaste  is  not  a  judge  to  decide  the  contest, 
but  acts  as  mediator,  and  the  prfai^  which  she  delivers  is 
almost  exactly  the  length  of  both  the  preceding  combined. 
She  addresses  the  last  speaker  first,  refutes  every  argument 
he  has  advanced,  then  turns  to  the  first  speaker  and  urges 
him  not  to  make  war  on  his  own  city.  Her  arguments,  how- 
ever, are  of  no  avail. 

The  scholiast  has  the  following  interesting  observation  on 
the  pTjaLii  of  lokaste  : 

eV  TOVTOt<i  ovSev  ^loKdarr)  avfi/Se/SovXevKe  tol'^  TraLol  koivco- 
</)6Xe9.  ciWd  T(p  jbtev  \eyei,  et?  tl  (j)t\oTi/jLfj  rvpavvelv  ;  tw  Be, 
eh  TL  TToXe/Ltet?  t)]p  TrarpiSa  ;  ixP^^  Be  tovtol^  av/jL^ovXevaai, 
Bce\ofjiivov(;  ret  Trarpcna,  Kai  ti]v  IBaaiXelav  iravaaaOaL  ttj^ 
BLXOo-Taaia<;y  ottw?  VTrearrjaav  ef  cipX^)^  "^<^  iiepo<^  dp^^iv. 
KUL  yap  eVl  rco  Troirjrj}  rjv  TrotfjcraL  avroi^  jmy  ireiOo^evov^, 
OTTO)?  Ta  T/}<?  laropiaf;  ixivrj  ^e^aia.  e'/fiapro  yap  avTov<;  dWr]- 
XoKrovov<;    yevofievovi;,   Kara    rd^    dpd<;   rod  irarpo^i   diroOavelv. 

VVV  06   OuSeV  TOVTCOP  7T67rOi7]K6V. 


n 


III.  —  Svii/3ov\€vtlk6<;. 
PERSUASION    WHOLLY. 

I.  Helen,   865-1029.     'F/jaec^;,   894-943,   947-995^   998- 
1029. 
Pleaders,  Helen  and  Menelaos. 
Judge,  Theonoe.        

IV.  —  'ETTlSet/CTlK-d?. 

I.  Troades,  353-405- 
Speaker,  Kassandra. 


V. 

'ETTtrac^tot. 

L    HiKETIDES 

5,  857-917. 

Speaker, 

Adrastos. 

2.  Troades, 

I  156-1206. 

SpeakeVy 

Hek 

sioxs 

abe. 

Divi 

OF  THE  Principal  Speeches  in 

Euripides. 

Alkestis. 

irpoo(|xiov 

629-633 
675-680 

•irp60€(rts 

irio-TCis 
633-668 
681-702 

tiriXo-yos 

669-672 
703-705 

Andromache. 

' 

147-154 
183-191 

319-323 
645-654 

324-329 
657-661 

155-180 
192-228 
333-360 
662-687 

229-231 

361-363 
688-690 

Bakchai. 

266-271 

272-287 

288-321 

322-327 

330-332 

333-340 

341-342 

Hekabe. 

251-285 

286-295 

299-300 

342-348 
II32-II36 

301-331 

349-368 

II36-II74 

369-378 
II75-I182 

1 1 87 -1 194 

II95-1232 

1232-I237 

I 


40 


James  T.  Lees, 


AtKavLKo<i  A0709  tn  Euripides. 


41 


Helen. 

trpooifiiov 

irpoBco-is 

894-943 

947-995 

e-TrCXo-yos 

Elektra. 

1011-1017 

101S-1048 

I 049- I 050 

I 060- I 06 I 

I 062- I 093 

I 093- I 096 

Herakleidai. 

134-135 

136-138 

139-174 

174-178 

181-183 

184-219 

226-231 

Herakles  Mainomenos. 

140-143 

144-164 

165-169 

170-173 

174-226 

227-235 

I255-I257 

1258-1298 

1299-1310 

^I'^-h-'^iyj 

1338-1339 

Hiketides. 

163-167 

168-183 

184-189 

190-192 

297-300 

301-325 

326-331 

409-422 

423-425 

426-428 

429-455 

456-462 

465-466 

467-475 

476-505 

506-510 

513-516 

517-557 

558-563 

'^-:>1-^S^ 

860-908 

909-917 

I 080- I 086 

1 087- 1 107 

II08-1113 

HiPPOLYTOS. 

936-942 

943-945 

946-970 

971-980 

983-991 

991-1024 

1025-1033 

Iphigeneia  en 

AULIDI. 

334-336 

337-365 

366-372 

yii-yis 

378-380 

381-399 

400-40 I 

II46-II47 

II48-I165 

1 166-1205 

1 206-1 208 

I2II-I2I5 

1216-1248 

I 249-1 252 

Ion. 

585-589 

589-644 

644-647 

KVKLOPS. 

285-289 

290-309 

309-312 

316-317 

^iS-^-ia 

\A.^-XAf> 

4 


^ 


irpooi^jLiov 

465-474 
522-525 

Orestes. 
491-495 

544-548 
640-641 

Troades. 

353-364 
914-918 

969-970 
1156-1157 

Phoinissai. 

469-472 
499-502 

528-530 

"TrpoOco-ts 

475-498 

irio-TCts 

499-515 

526-567 

496-533 

549-599 
642-677 

370-402 

919-960 

971-1028 

1 1 58-1 199 

503-520 
531-583 

CTTlXoYOS 

516-519 

567-575 

534-541 

600-604 

678-679 

365- 

-369 

403-405 

q6i-q6; 

1020-1032 

I 200- I 206 

473-493 

494-496 
521-525 

584-585 

Rhetorical  Index  to  the  Speeches  of  Euripides. 

'AvaSCirXwo-is;   Alk.  677,  Andr.  319,  650,  651,  (656),  678,  Hek.  328,  Hel.  ^ 

952,  Herak.  (225),  229,  Hiket.  857,  1108,  1109,  Iph.  Aul.   11 74,   ii75'   1252, 

Kvkl.  322,  rhoin.  536,  537,  552. 
•Ava4>opa;   Her.  Main.  143,  144,  148-150.  170,  17I'  1301,  1316,  1317.  ^led.  467, 

Phoin.  521,  585. 
'AvTiGeo-is;   Alk.  685,  692,  Hiket.  902,  908,  Med.  469-472  {et passim). 
ElKoVa;   Bak.  288   fg.,  Elek.   947,    1036,   Hek.   271  fg.,  282,  1207,  Her.   Main. 

1314  fg.,  Ion  594-611,  Hipp.  1008,  Crest.  532. 
ELpcov€£a;   Alk.  699  fg.,  Med.  472,  504,  51O'  Troad.  353  fg.,  365  %•>  386  fg. 
»    'EXaxTcoo-is;   Andr.  186,  Hek.  1237,  Med.  532,  Crest.  544,  Troad.  384. 
»    "EXc^Xos;   Alk.  640,  679  fg.,  696,  Elek.  1069  fg.,  Hek.   1199  fg.,  Herak.   184  fg., 

Her.  Main.  162,  190  ig.,  Hipp.  944,  Iph.  Aul.  335,  Med.  566. 
•EpuixTio-is;    Alk.  689,  691,  698,  702,  Andr.  193,  I95»  198,  200,  202  {et passim). 
Maprvpia;    Herak.  219,  Her.  Main.   176,  Hipp.  944,  960,  972,  977>   1022,  Iph. 

Aul.  11^8,  Med.  517,  532,  Phoin.  491,  Troad.  955. 
napa8€i^H.aTa;   Andr.   215  fg.,  333  k;  645  %•»  663  fg.,  668  fg.,  Elek.   1041  fg., 

Herak.  144  fg.,  207  fg..  Her.  Main.  1316,  Med.  508,  Crest.  507  fg. 
o    Hio-Two-is;    Hek.  299,  Hiket.  476,  Hipp.  1025  fg.,  Troad.  916  fg. 
,    npoKaTdXTix|/is;    Hiket.  184  ig.,  314  fg-,  Ion  629,  Troad.  916  fg.,  938  fg.,  951  fg. 
TcKHLTipia;   Alk.  634,  653  fg.,  Andr.  677,  Elek.  1041,  1086,  Hek.  1206,  Hel.  920^., 

Herakl.  142,  Iph.  Aul.  1185  ig.,  Troad.  961,  962,  970. 


42 


James   T.   Lees. 


Literature. 

1.  Aristotle.     Ars  Rhetorica,  Liber  IIL 

2.  Biass.     Die  Attische  Beredsamkeit.     Leipzig,  1868. 

3.  Cyranka.     De  Orationum  Thucy.  Elocutione  cum  Trag.  Comparata.     Breslau 

1875. 

4.  Dio  Chrys  )stomus.      Oratio  52. 

5.  Dionysius  Halicarnassensis.     Ars  Rhetorica,  c.  X. 

6.  Jebb.     Attic  Orators,  VoL  I. 

7.  Jebb.     The  Speeches  of  Thucydides.     Oxford,  1880. 

8.  Moulton.     The  Ancient  Classical  Drama.     Macmillan  &  Co.,  1890. 

9.  Miiller.       Dispositionen    zu    den    Reden    bei    Thucydides.      Paderborn    und 

MUnster,  18S7. 
10.  Volkmann.      Die  Rhetorik  der  Griechen  und  Romer.     Leipzig,  1868. 


i 


For  Textual  Criticism. 

1.  Cobet.     Variae  Lectiones.      Ed.  II.     Lugduni-Batavorum,  1873. 

2.  Kvicala.     Studien  zu  Euripides.     Wien,  1879. 

3.  Xauck.     Euripideische  Studien.     St.  Petersburg,  1S59-1862. 

4.  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff.     Analecta  Euripidea.     Berlin,  1875. 


1 


* 


i 


# 


■■1    ■', 


»    I 


d 


\ 


fC 


COLUMB 


A  UNIVERSITY 


0026061031 


ti 


